Gulshan Rai vs State of Haryana and ors.

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

The petitioner through the present writ petition has challenged order dated 7.7.1988, Annexure P3/A passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Local Self Government, Chandigarh whereby order dated 25.5.1982, Annexure P1/A vide which the approval for leasing out 90 Sq. yards of land belonging to the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, in favour of the petitioner was accorded, was cancelled.

The case put forward by the petitioner in nutshell is that there is a vacant land measuring about 90 sq. yards lying in front of the house of Sarvshri Devi Dayal and Ram Krishan and abutting the shop of petitioner Gulshan Rai. Vide order dated 25.5.1982 (Annexure P1/A) Government of Haryana sanctioned to grant lease of the land in question to the petitioner as per his request to the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, after leaving land for the road. Before the lease deed could be executed, Devi Dayal etc. filed a suit for permanent injunction in the civil Court at Rohtak for retraining the Municipal Committee, from granting lease. According to them, the grant of lease would obstruct their passage to their own property. The said suit was decided by the Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak, on 18.1.1986 whereby the main relief was declined and the suit was dismissed. However, it ws observed that since the passage was not defined by the Government in the letter sanctioning the lease of the property, so the Administrator Municipal Committee, Rohtak, was directed to leave the passage of 10 ft. wide from the main road upto shop of Devi Dayal and from the shop of Devi Dayal the width of the passage was to be 6 ft. in front of the house of Shri Sita Ram which was to run for the whole length measuring about 40 feet.

Almost simultaneously the petitioner had also filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak, for issuance of mandatory injunction for directing the Municipal Committee, Rohtak to implement the order of the Haryana State for leasing out the property to him, after compliance of all the formalities and the execution and registration of the lease deed. The said suit was also decided by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak, on 18.1.1986 whereby the suit was decreed subject to the condition of leaving passage as directed in civil suit filed by Sarvshri Devi Dayal etc. mentioned above.

It is relevant to add that civil suits were filed by Shri Devi Dayal, Sita Ram and Ram Krishan and one suit was filed by Shri Gulshan Rai, petitioner, and all were disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior SubJudge, Rohtak, both the parties filed appeal/cross objections etc. The learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, while disposing of appeal/cross objections, upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.1986. The right of the petitioner was upheld subject to leaving of passage as allowed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.1.1986.

Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak,dated 29.4.1986, both the parties preferred Regular Second Appeals in this Court and during the pendency of R.S. As. the State of Haryana passed the impugned order dated 7.7.1988 Annexure P3/A, vide which order dated 25.5.1982 (Annexure P1/A) was revoked.

The present petition was filed against the order dated 7.7.1988, which was admitted by the Motion Bench and operation of impugned order Annexure P3/A was stayed. It was ordered to be heard along with Regular Second Appeals pending in this Court against judgment and decree dated 29.4.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak.

The Regular Second Appeals referred to above came up for hearing before G.R. Majithia, J., on 30.5.1989 and the learned Judge dismissed all the Regular Second Appeals being infructuous on the ground that the State Government had itself revoked the sanction granted for leasing out the land in favour of the petitioner. Since the office did not tag the present writ petition along with Regular Second Appeals, so the order passed on 30.5.1989 was not in accordance with the directions of the admitting Division Bench, hence the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 69 of 1989 in Regular Second Appeal No. 2237 of 1986. Majithia, J., while declining the review petition on 27.10.1989 observed that the order passed in Regular Second Appeals will not affect the merit of the Civil Writ Petition and the petition be decided on merits.

Sarvshri Devi Dayal, Ram Krishan and legal representatives of Sita Ram (who died during the pendency of the proceedings) moved miscellaneous application for being impleaded as respondents in this petition on 11.7.1989 which was allowed on 27.7.1989.

The case was listed for hearing on 28.9.1990, 16.11.1990 and 19.11.1990 and was also shown partheard, but the counsel for the respondents did not choose even appearance despite grant of opportunities to them. Even no written statement has either been filed. Since no contest has been raised on behalf of the respondents, therefore, I accept the factual averments made in the petition as correct.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who brought to my notice the background of the case including the civil litigation between the parties and various orders passed by the Civil Courts including this Court in Regular Second Appeals preferred by the parties respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 is estopped from cancelling the order of sanction of leasing the land in favour of the petitioner after a period of six years. More so, no reasons has been assigned as to what was the irregularity in sanctioning of the lease as was earlier approved. I agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The State has to function as a Model State and it cannot back out, with the passage of time, after giving assurance to the citizens to do a particular thing which is within its competence.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 7.7.1988, annexure P3/A, passed by respondent No. 1 and direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to execute the lease deed of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which it was approved to be leased out vide order dated 25.5.1982 (Annexure P1/A) after completion of required formalities, within three months. The petitioner will also comply with his part of obligation.

It is made clear that the land will be leased out to the petitioner in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak, on 18.1.1986, vide which passage has to be left.

Parties to bear their own costs.