Strict compliance for municipal property rights barred revival of a cancelled allotment through unauthorized later action.

Rights in municipal immovable property arise only on strict compliance with the governing statutory procedure, including payment within the stipulated time, valid sanction, and execution of the required registered instrument. Where the balance premium was not paid within the extended period and no registered lease deed was executed, no enforceable right or title survived and the allotment stood cancelled. A later municipal order or resolution entered without statutory authority, fresh lawful material, or proper procedure was invalid and incapable of reviving the cancelled claim. The public interest petition was treated as raising a genuine issue concerning misuse of public property, and the High Court's interference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the auction allotment or any rights in the plot survived when the balance premium was not paid within the extended time and no registered lease deed was executed; (ii) whether the subsequent municipal order and resolution entering the claimant's name in the lease register were valid under the governing statute; (iii) whether the public interest petition and the High Court's interference were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the auction allotment or any rights in the plot survived when the balance premium was not paid within the extended time and no registered lease deed was executed.

Analysis: The payment extension granted in 1952 was conditional and expressly provided that failure to pay the balance would result in cancellation. On the admitted facts, the full premium was never paid within time. In addition, a lease of immovable property for a period exceeding one year required a registered instrument, and no such document was executed. The statutory requirements for creation of rights in municipal property were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: No enforceable right or title survived in favour of the auction purchaser or his successors, and the allotment stood cancelled on failure to comply with the condition of payment.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent municipal order and resolution entering the claimant's name in the lease register were valid under the governing statute.

Analysis: Disposal or leasing of municipal immovable property had to conform to the statutory conditions governing municipal property and could not be effected below current market value or without the required sanction and procedure. The earlier rejection of the applications had not been set aside by any competent authority, nor was there any statutory power of review enabling the later decision to reopen the matter. The record also showed absence of material supporting actual delivery of possession, and the impugned action was taken in undue haste on the basis of an external legal opinion and not on fresh lawful material.

Conclusion: The later municipal order and resolution were invalid, unauthorized, and liable to be treated as having no legal effect.

Issue (iii): Whether the public interest petition and the High Court's interference were justified.

Analysis: The property was public property, and the record disclosed an attempt to part with it in a manner contrary to the Corporation's interest. The petition raised a genuine public law issue concerning misuse of municipal power. The challenge that the appellant had not been heard did not merit interference, particularly when the matter had been fully heard before the Supreme Court and the appellant had notice of the proceedings below. The Court also found that no substantial ground existed for exercise of discretionary appellate jurisdiction to disturb the High Court's decision.

Conclusion: The public interest petition was maintainable, and the High Court's quashing of the impugned municipal action called for no interference.

Final Conclusion: The disputed municipal allotment could not be upheld because the statutory prerequisites for creating rights in the property were never satisfied, and the later attempt to revive the claim was unlawful. The appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rights in municipal immovable property arise only upon strict compliance with the governing statutory procedure, including valid sanction and execution of the required registered instrument, and a later administrative act taken without authority cannot revive a cancelled allotment or confer title.

---