purpose, in fact, Principles of Government of Social Upbringing is sought to be achieved. The learned counsel submits that a conscious decision has been taken at three different levels, firstly, at the level of Municipal Council forwarding proposal to the State Government through the Collector; secondly, the Collector recommending the proposal of the Municipal Council and forwarding the same to the State Government through proper channel and; thirdly, the State Government granting approval to the proposal. As a matter of fact that though the petitioner has applied just a day before the date of the General Body Meeting of the Municipal Council, he did not produce anything on record to demonstrate the activities carried out by the petitioner’s Trust. The Municipal Council was to discharge its obligation by providing facilities for carrying out social and cultural activities, which is now sought to be achieved by respondent no.7-Trust. Since there is no auction, it cannot be said that the power exercised is ultra vires. When the object is being satisfied by some other persons, it is open for the Municipal Council to allot the land to such other persons. The land is not allotted permanently and ownership will always be with the Municipal Council. Even under Rule 7 of 1983 Rules, there are other options provided than the auction. Rule 21 has been rightly invoked by the State Government. Assuming that Rule 7 could have been pressed into service, Rule 26 has overriding effect. So far as change of user of the land is concerned, he submitted that even without changing purpose of the land, construction was permissible and therefore there is no material change achieved by changing the purpose for which the land was reserved.
