(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI) 1. By way of this Appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent, the appellant-original-petitioner has challenged the oral order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10328 of 2009 by which the petition was dismissed on the ground that neither the petitioner nor respondent no.2, i.e. Dhoraji Nagarpalika had any title over the disputed property upon which either Janmasthami fair or Urs fair being organised every year, and therefore, the Collector has authority to regulate the funds received in managing the stalls which are temporarily raised on the land for the concerned fair.
2. The main challenge before the learned Single Judge was that two communications dated 1.8.2009 and 26.8.2009 by which the Collector has informed the Mamlatdar, Dhoraji to allot the ground for organising either Janmasthami fair or Urs fair on certain conditions were contrary to resolution passed by Dhoraji Municipality allotting the ground without any fees to the petitioner to organise Urs fair every year. It was mentioned in the order of the Collector dated 1.8.2009 that in absence of any decision about the title of the disputed land, the land is treated as Government land and Dhoraji Nagarpalika has no power to pass any resolution qua the said land. By the said communication, the Mamlatdar was directed to form a committee consisting of Mamlatdar, Dhoraji; Taluka Development Officer, Dhoraji; Deputy Executive Engineer, Road and Building Department and Chief Officer of Dhoraji Nagarpalika who shall manage the fair and the funds which would have been received in the auction when the land is allotted to the organiser for the concerned fair. Similarly, by communication dated 26.8.2009, the Collector has clarified by addressing a letter to Mamlatdar, Dhoraji that the observations made by the letter dated 1.8.2009 are also required to be kept in mind while allotting the disputed ground for organising the Urs fair.
3. The learned Single Judge, by a reasoned order, has come to the conclusion that the Mamlatdar, Dhoraji had no title over the property and ought not to have passed the resolution upon which the petitioner has relied upon. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the petitioner had no legal right to ask for the amount without paying any fees to the authority. It is pertinent to note that the Collector has directed the Mamlatdar by the impugned communication that the amount received in auction of the stalls, shall be kept in a separate account and shall be used only after the permission of Collector is just, proper and reasonable direction and therefore also, we would not like to interfere in the administrative decision of the authority below.
4. We are in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(V.M.SAHAI,J) (A.J.DESAI,J) ***vcdarji