High Court · 2025

Parishad will do so. Aggrieved by this notice, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The petitioners primarily contend that they are in occupation of the premises in question for the last several years and have been paying rent. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a resolution passed by the Municipal Board on 25.11.2024 in respect of the premises in question. This resolution contains a decision, as per which, the illegal occupants would be granted preference in settlement of land in their possession and, on their failure to do so, the property would be put to auction. The petitioners submit that pursuant to such resolution passed, the petitioners have conveyed their willingness to pay the market rate of land in terms of the resolution and, therefore, at this juncture, there is no occasion for the Municipal Body to evict the petitioners or to direct demolition of standing constructions.

4. When the matter was taken up on the previous occasion, learned counsel for the Municipal Body was allowed time to obtain instructions in the matter. The Court had also called upon the learned counsel for the respondents to place the rules framed under Section 296 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916. The order passed by this Court on 7.7.2025 in Writ-C No.20905 of 2025 reads as under:- "Petitioner contends that in terms of the resolution passed by the local body dated 25.11.2024, he has already conveyed his consent to pay the requisite amount for transfer of the land in question on which his house exists, yet the authorities are proposing to demolish the construction. Learned counsel representing respondent nos.3 and 4 states that necessary approval has not been obtained under the rules framed for the purpose. In the facts of the case, we call upon learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 to obtain proper instructions in the matter. The rules framed under Section 296 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 shall also be placed. Put up as fresh, once again, on 14.7.2025. Till then, respondents are restrained from demolishing the construction in question."

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Board has produced before the Court the notification dated 26.6.1973, whereby Rule 3-A is made permitting transfer of property by the Board. Rule 3-A reads as under:- "3-A. The Board shall not ordinarily transfer or lease out any property vested in it except by auction or after inviting tenders. In cases where public tenders have not been invited or an auction has not been held, the board shall record its reasons for entertaining a private offer and the method adopted by it in fixing the rent."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-board submits that the rules do permit the Municipal Body to transfer its property except by auction or inviting tenders but with the condition that where such transfer is accepted without auction or by inviting tenders, the Municipal Body will have to record reasons for entertaining a private offer and the method adopted by it for fixing the rent. Learned counsel states that the local body shall examine the matter and shall do the needful.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the resolution relied upon by the petitioner does not contain any reason as is required by virtue of Rule 3-A and, therefore, the resolution of the Board is not liable to be implemented. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that these are aspects which can be examined by the prescribed authority exercising its powers under Section 32/34 of the U.P. Municipalities Act,

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records.

9. It is undisputed that the petitioners have no title over the land in question. The land vests with the Nagar Palika Parishad and the petitioners at best can claim to be occupants. Whether such occupancy is required to be regularised or the occupants are required to be evicted in public interest would be an aspect that would require consideration at the level of the competent authority.

10. So far as the resolution passed by the Board dated

25.11.2024 is concerned, we find that the rules clearly prohibit the Board from transferring or leasing out the property in question except by auction or after inviting tenders. Any departure with such procedure can be by recording reasons and the method for fixing the rent has also to be specified. The resolution dated 25.11.2024 does not meet this requirement. We are, therefore, not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to act upon the resolution dated 25.11.2024.

11. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the prescribed authority would be well within its jurisdiction to exercise its supervisory powers and examine the matter and the resolution after notice to the parties concerned. For such purposes, we permit the petitioners to approach the prescribed authority alongwith all materials in support of their claim within a week from today. The prescribed authority shall examine the issue raised as also the legality of the resolution passed by the Board on 25.11.2024. An appropriate reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandausi would be passed in the matter within a period of six weeks from today.

12. Till an appropriate order in terms of the above direction is passed by the prescribed authority, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the property in question.

13. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, both writ petitions stand disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 SK SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parishad will do so. Aggrieved by this notice, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The petitioners primarily contend that they are in occupation of the premises in question for the last several years and have been paying rent. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a resolution passed by the Municipal Board on 25.11.2024 in respect of the premises in question. This resolution contains a decision, as per which, the illegal occupants would be granted preference in settlement of land in their possession and, on their failure to do so, the property would be put to auction. The petitioners submit that pursuant to such resolution passed, the petitioners have conveyed their willingness to pay the market rate of land in terms of the resolution and, therefore, at this juncture, there is no occasion for the Municipal Body to evict the petitioners or to direct demolition of standing constructions.

4. When the matter was taken up on the previous occasion, learned counsel for the Municipal Body was allowed time to obtain instructions in the matter. The Court had also called upon the learned counsel for the respondents to place the rules framed under Section 296 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916. The order passed by this Court on 7.7.2025 in Writ-C No.20905 of 2025 reads as under:- "Petitioner contends that in terms of the resolution passed by the local body dated 25.11.2024, he has already conveyed his consent to pay the requisite amount for transfer of the land in question on which his house exists, yet the authorities are proposing to demolish the construction. Learned counsel representing respondent nos.3 and 4 states that necessary approval has not been obtained under the rules framed for the purpose. In the facts of the case, we call upon learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 to obtain proper instructions in the matter. The rules framed under Section 296 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 shall also be placed. Put up as fresh, once again, on 14.7.2025. Till then, respondents are restrained from demolishing the construction in question."

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Board has produced before the Court the notification dated 26.6.1973, whereby Rule 3-A is made permitting transfer of property by the Board. Rule 3-A reads as under:- "3-A. The Board shall not ordinarily transfer or lease out any property vested in it except by auction or after inviting tenders. In cases where public tenders have not been invited or an auction has not been held, the board shall record its reasons for entertaining a private offer and the method adopted by it in fixing the rent."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-board submits that the rules do permit the Municipal Body to transfer its property except by auction or inviting tenders but with the condition that where such transfer is accepted without auction or by inviting tenders, the Municipal Body will have to record reasons for entertaining a private offer and the method adopted by it for fixing the rent. Learned counsel states that the local body shall examine the matter and shall do the needful.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the resolution relied upon by the petitioner does not contain any reason as is required by virtue of Rule 3-A and, therefore, the resolution of the Board is not liable to be implemented. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that these are aspects which can be examined by the prescribed authority exercising its powers under Section 32/34 of the U.P. Municipalities Act,

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records.

9. It is undisputed that the petitioners have no title over the land in question. The land vests with the Nagar Palika Parishad and the petitioners at best can claim to be occupants. Whether such occupancy is required to be regularised or the occupants are required to be evicted in public interest would be an aspect that would require consideration at the level of the competent authority.

10. So far as the resolution passed by the Board dated

25.11.2024 is concerned, we find that the rules clearly prohibit the Board from transferring or leasing out the property in question except by auction or after inviting tenders. Any departure with such procedure can be by recording reasons and the method for fixing the rent has also to be specified. The resolution dated 25.11.2024 does not meet this requirement. We are, therefore, not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to act upon the resolution dated 25.11.2024.

11. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the prescribed authority would be well within its jurisdiction to exercise its supervisory powers and examine the matter and the resolution after notice to the parties concerned. For such purposes, we permit the petitioners to approach the prescribed authority alongwith all materials in support of their claim within a week from today. The prescribed authority shall examine the issue raised as also the legality of the resolution passed by the Board on 25.11.2024. An appropriate reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandausi would be passed in the matter within a period of six weeks from today.

12. Till an appropriate order in terms of the above direction is passed by the prescribed authority, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the property in question.

13. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, both writ petitions stand disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 SK SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad