IMPORTANT POINT
Public land can be transferred by the State to any authority or trust by notification. Unless properly notified, no authority or trust can become owner of nazul land.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.-Special leave granted in both the petitions.

2. In these two appeals, the defensibility and legal pregnability of the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No. 234 of 2007 and the order dated 22nd September, 2010 in R.P. No. 83 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench has dislodged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2002 wherein the writ court had declined to interfere with the order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Gwalior Development Authority (for short " the GDA"), who, by the said order, had terminated the lease of the first respondent herein and directed it to surrender the possession of the property within seven days, failing which appropriate action to be taken against it in accordance with law, is called in question.

3. The succinct expose' of facts are that the GDA issued an advertisement for allotment of plot No. 1 admeasuring 40160 sq. feet situated in the locality known as Mayur Market for the purpose of construction of a cinema house and, in the public auction, the respondent- company, the first respondent herein, became the highest bidder and accordingly, a lease agreement was executed on 27.5.1978 between the GDA and the respondent company. The said lease agreement was for a period of thirty years with the stipulation of a right of renewal subject to certain conditions. It was asserted in the writ petition that after execution of the lease deed, the respondent company constructed a cinema hall and commenced the business. As certain disputes arose between the directors of the company, it was eventually resolved that the licence for running the cinema should be surrendered and in consonance with the resolution, a letter was issued to the Collector concerned, who cancelled the licence for running the cinema hall. After closure of the cinema hall, the GDA, by communication dated 2.8.2002, terminated the lease and directed for handing over possession of the land in question.

4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the notice for cancellation of lease was not served on it and the allegations that there had been violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement were absolutely unsustainable and, therefore, the eventual act of termination was sensitively susceptible. It was also urged that as permission was granted for raising permanent construction, the lease had the character of a permanent lease and could not have been terminated by the GDA. The GDA combated the aforesaid stand put forth by the respondent-company and countered the same by contending, inter alia, that there had been violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement; that the stance of putting the lease on the pedestal of a permanent lease was sans substance; that the plea that the notice for cancellation of lease was not served was contrary to the documents brought on record; that reminders were served on the respondent-company; that the lease was granted for a specific purpose and when the said purpose had totally melted into extinction, it was within the legal province of the GDA to cancel the lease and take appropriate steps for eviction.

5. The learned Single Judge took note of the proponements canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and posed the question whether the GDA had the right to terminate the lease of the petitioner and, thereafter, scanning the terms and conditions of the lease deed, expressed the view that as there has been cancellation of the licence of the cinema hall, the order of termination of the lease was valid and the petitioner would have an opportunity of hearing before steps are taken for its dispossession. Being of this view, he dismissed the writ petition. Be it noted, a contention was raised before the learned Single Judge that the land in question is owned by the State but the same