Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Responding to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the sale of the land in question has been effected through private negotiations, without resorting to the process of public auction, the learned Advocate General has submitted that it is not an invariable rule that property cannot be sold for a public purpose at the prevailing market rate, without inviting tenders. It is contended that the land in question came to be sold to the respondent No. 4 for development purposes, inasmuch as it is situated in the midst of the various properties of the respondent No. 4.The same has not been sold for the purpose of generating revenue or with a view to earning any profit. The Municipality has offered the land in question to the respondent No. 4 for a specified purpose, which is a public purpose. Moreover, it is emphasised that the petitioners have never contended in any proceedings that they were desirous of purchasing the land, and this stand has only been taken at the time of filing the affidavit-in-rejoinder in the present petition. It is clarified that the market price of the land has been properly determined by the State Government, by scrupulously following the necessary instructions in this regard, contained in various Government Circulars and after taking into account relevant sale instances. It is further submitted that when the market price has been properly determined and the State Government has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects while granting permission under Section 65(2) of the Act, it cannot be said that the sale of the land is for some alien purpose or has been effected in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, in violation of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners or of any legal provision. Drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government, the learned Advocate General has submitted that it has been the practice of the State Government while granting permission under Section 65(2) of the Act for the sale of the lands under streets for various purposes, to follow the Government resolutions and circulars in this regard, as is evident from the instances set out in the reply affidavit from pages 329 to 335 and it cannot be said that this procedure has been resorted to only in the case of the respondent No. 4. It is submitted that permission for sale of the land in favour of respondent No. 4 has been granted in consonance with the prevalent policy of the Government.

25. Regarding the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land in question was required to be sold by the Municipality by resorting to the procedure of public auction/tender, and that not having been done, the sale by private negotiation in favour of the respondent No. 4, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the roads in question have not been sold to the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of generating revenue or for earning profit, but for a public purpose. On an application being made by the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 3 - Municipality has specifically offered the property to respondent No. 4 for a public purpose. One of the reasons was that almost all the properties abutting on the land comprising the three roads belong to the respondent No. 4. To decide the question whether the sale of property to the respondent No. 4 by determining the market price on the basis of Government Circulars, Resolutions, relevant sale instances, and without inviting tenders amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it would be helpful to advert to certain judicial pronouncements in this regard. In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of W.B. , the Supreme Court has held as under:

30. The principle of law which emerges from the above judicial pronouncements is very clear, namely, that taking recourse to public auction is not an invariable rule and that the State Government or the public authority concerned can sell its property without resorting to the method of public auction and without inviting tenders, for the general benefit of the public provided, that the sale is not arbitrary or discriminatory. In the case in hand, the property in question has been sold, keeping in mind prevalent guidelines for granting permission under Section 65(2) of the Act, for sale of lands and streets for various purposes. A perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government alongwith the annexures thereto, it is evident that the State Government has followed the previous circulars/resolutions relating to this aspect,some of which are set out herein-under:

34. From the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that the State Government has granted permission for the sale of the property after due and proper application of mind and after meticulously ascertaining the market value of the property by referring to the past practice, relevant circulars and resolutions as well as relevant sale instances in the area. The sale has been effected at the prevailing market rate and it cannot be said that it has resulted in loss of revenue to the public exchequer. This being the position, the non-inviting of tenders is neither arbitrary, discriminatory, nor violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The sale has been made for a public purpose and not for any ulterior reason, and the fact that tenders were not invited cannot be said to be a ground to vitiate or invalidate the sale. The record reveals that there has been proper application of mind to all relevant aspects before permission to sell was granted. The procedure adopted by the State Government in this regard is fair and transparent, and there is no material on record, to prove the contrary. The order dated 29-1-2007, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant the interference of this Court.