<p>The High Court has directed the Mandya City Municipal Council to consider the representation to grant user rights in respect of conservancy land to a few residents. Justice Krishna Krishna S Dixit observed that being a local government, municipal body cannot conduct as a branch of East India Company of the bygone years.</p>.<p>The petitioners, residents of Ashok Nagar area in Mandya, had approached the court with the grievance of non-consideration of their claim for the grant of user-rights on conservancy land adjoining their lands. They contended that there had been resolutions of the council since 1996 and rights would be given to the public for using the spaces.</p>.<p>The state government contended that the conservancy land is a public property and it cannot be granted to anyone save with the sanction of the state government. The counsel representing the Mandya City Municipal Council stated that the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners have already been rescinded by subsequent resolutions.</p>.<p>The court noted that the local body in its meetings held in July and August 1996 had resolved to permit the use of half of the conservancy land attached to private property. Subsequently in July 2008, the municipal body passed another resolution providing for the grant of conservancy land to the owners of the adjoining properties in equal proportions.</p>.<p>The court said that when resolutions have been passed and some allotments have been made in favour of a few adjoining owners, denying the said benefit to others violate the doctrine of promissory estoppel. On the contention of resolution rescinding of the resolution, the court said it is not with the retrospective effect and that it cannot undo what the petitioners have already done on the conservancy land.</p>.<p>“The municipal body acts as a local government. Its acts and deeds should be animated with reason and justice. It cannot conduct as a branch of the East India Company of the bygone years. Discriminatory treatment of the residents who obviously have been paying taxes cannot be justified, especially when they are agreeable to all terms and conditions as have been imposed by the municipal body while extending the benefit of earlier resolutions to others similarly situated,” the court said.</p>.<p>Allowing the petitions in part, the court directed the municipal body to consider the representations of the petitioners for the grant of user rights in respect of conservancy land in accordance with law and in terms of the resolution of the year 2008 on par with the others.</p>
<p>The High Court has directed the Mandya City Municipal Council to consider the representation to grant user rights in respect of conservancy land to a few residents. Justice Krishna Krishna S Dixit observed that being a local government, municipal body cannot conduct as a branch of East India Company of the bygone years.</p>.<p>The petitioners, residents of Ashok Nagar area in Mandya, had approached the court with the grievance of non-consideration of their claim for the grant of user-rights on conservancy land adjoining their lands. They contended that there had been resolutions of the council since 1996 and rights would be given to the public for using the spaces.</p>.<p>The state government contended that the conservancy land is a public property and it cannot be granted to anyone save with the sanction of the state government. The counsel representing the Mandya City Municipal Council stated that the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners have already been rescinded by subsequent resolutions.</p>.<p>The court noted that the local body in its meetings held in July and August 1996 had resolved to permit the use of half of the conservancy land attached to private property. Subsequently in July 2008, the municipal body passed another resolution providing for the grant of conservancy land to the owners of the adjoining properties in equal proportions.</p>.<p>The court said that when resolutions have been passed and some allotments have been made in favour of a few adjoining owners, denying the said benefit to others violate the doctrine of promissory estoppel. On the contention of resolution rescinding of the resolution, the court said it is not with the retrospective effect and that it cannot undo what the petitioners have already done on the conservancy land.</p>.<p>“The municipal body acts as a local government. Its acts and deeds should be animated with reason and justice. It cannot conduct as a branch of the East India Company of the bygone years. Discriminatory treatment of the residents who obviously have been paying taxes cannot be justified, especially when they are agreeable to all terms and conditions as have been imposed by the municipal body while extending the benefit of earlier resolutions to others similarly situated,” the court said.</p>.<p>Allowing the petitions in part, the court directed the municipal body to consider the representations of the petitioners for the grant of user rights in respect of conservancy land in accordance with law and in terms of the resolution of the year 2008 on par with the others.</p>