IMPORTANT POINT
The land allotted to 1st respondent is different from the land allotted to appellant, therefore, appellant cannot complain that the land which had already been granted to them has been ordered by High Court to State Government to grant it to respondent No. 1.

Headnote:Dispute on allotment of land-High Court directed State Government to allot land to respondent-Appellant challenging in appeal to High Court that land allotted to them earlier is allotted to respondent No. 1-Dismissed-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Supreme Court finding land in two allotments were different-There was mistake in re-allotment letter-Can appellant take advantage of said mistake? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : We see no substance in the submission made by Mr. Jain. The State Government has filed an affidavit. They also annexed thereto a plan of the area. From the affidavit as well as the plan, it is clear that 47,297 sq.ft. allotted to the Appellant is different from 7153 sq.ft. allotted to the 1st Respondent. The two plots of land are adjoining pieces of land. The Schedule to the Lease Deed of the Appellant also shows that on the north side of the plot of land allotted to the Appellant there is a plot allotted to Indian Coffee House. Faced with this situation, Mr. Jain submitted that what was re-allotted to the Appellant, on 23rd November, 1994, was 1.25 acres viz. 54,450 sq. ft. In support of this he relied upon Clause 2 of the letter dated 23rd November, 1994 (which has been reproduced hereinabove). We are unable to accept this submission. The first part of the letter dated 23rd November, 1994 clearly states that 47297 sq. ft. had been allotted earlier. By this letter the land earlier allotted to them is being re-granted. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that 1.25 acres have been mentioned (in para 2) by mistake. The State Government in their affidavit has also clarified that the figure 1.25 acre" was mentioned by mistake. The Appellant is trying to take advantage of this mistake in order to claim 54,450 sq. ft. of land when all that is allotted to them is 47,297 sq. ft. They cannot be permitted to do. It is clear that the land allotted to the 1st Respondent is different from the land allotted to the Appellant. The Appellant can thus have no grievance. There is no substance in these Appeals. Accordingly the Appeals stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. (Paras 10, 11 & 12)

JUDGMENT

Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard parties.

3. These Appeals are against an order dated 8th March, 2002 by which Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Appellant have been dismissed.

4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

On 14th of May, 1985, the Appellant was sanctioned a lease of an area measuring 47,297 sq. ft. out of Nazul Sheet No. 8, Plot No.66, Huzur, Bhopal. The said plot was to be used for cycle and motor parking. However by a letter dated 30th May, 1985, the user of the plot was changed to "auditorium construction". Pursuant to this allotment an Indenture of Lease dated 17th December, 1985 was entered. The Schedule of the property in the Indenture of Lease reads as follows:

"THESCHEDULEABOVE REFERRED TO

North:- Plot of Indian Coffee House, South:- Building of Apex Bank, East:-Road, West:- Road."

Thus the Schedule shows that to the north of the plot, allotted to the Appellant, was the plot belonging to Indian Coffee Board. Possession of 47,297 sq. ft. was handed over to the Appellant in January, 1986. As the auditorium was not constructed by the Appellant within the time permitted the land was resumed by the Government by an order dated 29th July, 1993.

5. On 27th May, 1986, the 1st Respondent was given a lease of land measuring 7153 sq. ft. This was also out of Nazul Sheet No.8, Plot No. 66, Huzur, Bhopal. This lease was cancelled by an Order dated 25th June, 1994. The 1st Respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition on 27th of June, 1994. In that writ petition an interim order, staying cancellation, was passed on 8th July, 1994.

6. In the mean time the Appellant had made representations. Pursuant thereto the State Government agreed to hand back the land to the Appellant. The relevant portion of the letter dated 23rd November, 1994 reads as follows:

"The M.P. State Co-op. Bank, Bhopal was allotted 47, 292 sq. ft. of land bearing nazul sheet No.8, plot No.66 in the Capital Project Area by order No.6-183/Eight/79 dated 14.5.85 of the Revenue Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on general conditions by charging premium amount of Rs. 6,66,887/- and annual lease rent of Rs. 50,016.59 by order No.6-52/Seven/S-2B/93 dated 29.7.93 of the department cancelling the allotment order dated 14.5.85 of the said land orders were passed to resume this land.

Now the State Govt. after full consideration cancelling the order No.6-52/ Seven/2B/93 dated 29.7.93 and holding the order no. 6-183. Eight/79 dated 16.3.85 as valid has decided that the balance amount of the premium amount of Rs. 6,66,887/- and lease rent amount of Rs. 50,016.59 to be charged from the institution by the allotment order dated 14.5.85 be got deposited according to the rules and the possession of the aforesaid land and the permission to construct the building on the terms prescribed earlier be given along with the following special terms:

1. That out of the land in question on the main road New Market Roshanpura-M.A.C.T. and the land of Apex Bank adjoining thereto abreast the alignment of the road, the bank would have to return a 15 feet wide strip to the Govt. free of cost, which would be used for parking of the cars and the scooters. The fencing or any other construction on some part thereof shall be removed by the allottee at his own cost within 15 days of this order and shall have to hand over its possession to the Collector, Bhopal.

2. That on 1.25 acres of land in question M.P. State Co-op. Bank in the interest and for the use of the agriculturists complying with the rules of the Municipal Corporation, Urban and Rural Investment Department and other local bodies shall construct the auditorium and the library in such a way that the entire space in the basement and on the ground floor is reserved for the car parking. The other construction would be made on the first floor and above that and at the same time in the present bank premises adequate space would be left and reserved for proper parking and other conveniences

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 847

IMPORTANT POINTThe land allotted to 1st respondent is different from the land allotted to appellant, therefore, appellant cannot complain that the land which had already been granted to them has been ordered by High Court to State Government to grant it to respondent No. 1.

IMPORTANT POINT
The land allotted to 1st respondent is different from the land allotted to appellant, therefore, appellant cannot complain that the land which had already been granted to them has been ordered by High Court to State Government to grant it to respondent No. 1.