Supreme Court Affirms High Court Decision on Illegal Auction and Lease, Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Possession.

The SC dismissed the appeal, affirming the HC's judgment that the respondent-Corporation's actions were illegal. The HC quashed the incorporation of respondent No. 7's name in the municipal register and declared the auction of Plot No. 2557 invalid, as statutory lease requirements were unmet. The PIL was deemed maintainable, emphasizing public interest and procedural fairness. The property remained with the respondent-Corporation, and the appellant's claim was rejected due to lack of possession and execution of a lease deed. The SC found no procedural error, concluding substantial justice was served, and dismissed the appeal without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the incorporation of the name of respondent No. 7 in the municipal register.
2. Validity of the auction and subsequent actions taken by the respondent-Corporation.
3. Public interest and the role of statutory authorities.
4. Procedural fairness and the right to be heard.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Incorporation of the Name of Respondent No. 7 in the Municipal Register
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed questioning the action of the respondent-Corporation and its Chairman of the Standing Committee regarding the incorporation of the name of respondent No. 7 in the municipal register. The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 30th July 1997 and Resolution No. 185 passed by the Standing Committee on 25th July 1997, declaring them illegal and unjust. The High Court directed the deletion of the names of the legal heirs of late Shri Vajubha from the lease register and prohibited any lease agreement with them.

Issue 2: Validity of the Auction and Subsequent Actions Taken by the Respondent-Corporation
The auction for Plot No. 2557 was held on 7.11.1951, and Shri Vajubha was the highest bidder. However, he failed to deposit the full amount within the stipulated time, leading to the forfeiture of the allotment. The High Court found that no possession was delivered to Shri Vajubha, no lease deed was executed, and the plot remained open and unused. The statutory requirements for granting a lease were not fulfilled, and thus, no title passed to Shri Vajubha or his successors.

Issue 3: Public Interest and the Role of Statutory Authorities
The High Court held that the respondent-Corporation acted against its own interest by passing the impugned order without considering the value of the land, which was approximately one crore. The Councillors, as holders of public offices, were bound to act as trustees of the Corporation. The PIL was deemed maintainable as the writ petitioners had locus standi.

Issue 4: Procedural Fairness and the Right to be Heard
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in passing the judgment without hearing him. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant was given notice but chose not to appear before the High Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the counsel at length, concluded that substantial justice had been done and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.

Findings:
- The property in question vested with the respondent-Corporation, and the statutory requirements for granting a lease were not met.
- The High Court's findings that no possession was delivered and no lease deed was executed were upheld.
- The impugned order was passed based on a lawyer's opinion without considering the legal questions raised in the PIL.
- The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's decision to entertain the PIL, as public interest was compromised by the impugned order.
- The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.

---