Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 1119
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Shaik Munni - Appellant
Versus
Jagan Mohan Salt Industries, Calingapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 09-21-02
Headnote:
Civil Matter - Civil Suit – Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order 39 rule 1 - Petitions and appeals are as follows - An extent of about 563 acres belonging to Department of salt, Government of India, was leased out to plaintiff under a registered lease deed commencing for a period of 20 years on an annual rent of - As assignment fee and pursuant to lease deed entered into between parties a license was issued in favor of plaintiff - After incurring huge expenditure for erection of platforms, reservoirs for storage of water, repairing brine-channel for supply of seawater into factory area etc - Plaintiff started carrying on business - While matters stood thus - Very good demand for aqua culture, according to plaintiff, after taking permission from Salt Department of Government of India - One of defendants, he started aqua-culture in an extent of 20 Hectares of land on a rent at rate - Plaintiff was engaged more in business of aqua-culture than salt business for which land was actually leased out, government of India by its order cancelled the lease and directed salt Factory Officer to take possession within 15 days of receipt of said order - Said order of cancellation was questioned by plaintiff in this court by way of a writ petition, but same was dismissed holding that it is a matter of enforcement of terms of a concluded contract and, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and that plaintiff can avail other remedies that are available in law - Plaintiff now comes forward with a petition in C. M. P to vacate order passed in C. M. P in A. S, stating that immediately after cancellation of lease and license, plaintiff filed writ petition in this High court and same ended in dismissal observing that he can file a suit - He filed present suit and during pendency of suit, Government of india issued a tender notification inviting tenders for auction of leasehold rights in respect of suit schedule salt pans - In said tender notification, it is clearly mentioned that lease period is for 20 years from date of lease or till disposal of the suit i. e. , O. S. filed by plaintiff, whichever is earlier - It is further stated in affidavit that after an elaborate trial and after discussing entire oral and documentary evidence, court below has clearly held that termination of lease is illegal and accordingly passed a decree - Thus, by virtue of said decree read with terms of tender notification lease granted in favour of appellant in A. S who is a third party to suit proceedings, shall automatically stand terminated - As a consequence thereof, third party is bound to vacate premises and plaintiff is entitled to be re-inducted into possession of suit schedule land and shall be allowed to continue till expiry of 20 years lease period - According to plaintiff, immediately after lease was granted in his favour in year 1990 and till termination of lease in year 1998 - it is plaintiff who had actually spent huge amounts in developing salt pans and made ready patches which were given in lease to third party - It is stated that t contention that third party had spent huge amount is not true and is baseless – Held, Court view of aforementioned subsequent development, I have no hesitation to hold that court below has not transgressed its jurisdiction while ordering re-delivery of possession in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, contention put forth by learned counsel for third party is rejected - Court view of finding recorded hereinabove that stay granted by this court in favor of third party on 15-5-2002 in C. M. P. No. 10005 of 2002 is liable to be vacated, lease in favour of third party would come to an end and by virtue of present order, plaint schedule land will have to be redelivered to plaintiff. But, having due regard to fact that plaintiff was paying lesser rate than third party and with a view to safeguard the larger interests of Government, Court feel that ends of justice would be met if rate fixed by Government in favour of plaintiff is revised now pending disposal of appeal - When this court put a question, learned counsel for plaintiff in consultation with his client submitted that plaintiff is prepared to - But, in view of huge difference between rate fixed in lease entered into with third party and rate which is now offered by plaintiff, this court feels it expedient to direct plaintiff to pay per tone of salt produced during pendency of this appeal and upon execution of lease deed to above effect by plaintiff, defendants shall redeliver vacant possession of plaint schedule land to plaintiff - Plaintiff is hereby directed to pay per tone of salt produced during pendency of these appeals and upon execution of a lease deed to above effect by plaintiff, defendants are hereby directed redeliver vacant possession of plaint schedule land to plaintiff - Court view of the orders passed - Appeal Dismissed.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 26 of 1998 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, srikakulam, is the petitioner in C. M. P. No. 15114 of 2002, which is filed to vacate the interim order dated 15-5-2002 passed in cm. P. No. 10005 of 2002 in A. S. No. 932 of 2002.
( 2 ) THE defendants in the said suit are the petitioners in the other petition i. e. , c. M. P. No. 8596 of 2002, which is filed to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree in the suit.
( 3 ) AS the subject matter of the dispute in both the matters is one and the same, both the petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
( 4 ) THE factual matrix of the petitions and appeals are as follows: An extent of about 563 acres belonging to the Department of salt, Government of India, was leased out to the plaintiff under a registered lease deed dated 13-4-1990 commencing from 27-2-1990 for a period of 20 years on an annual rent of rs. 1,01,007/- as assignment fee and pursuant to the lease deed entered into between the parties a licence was issued in favour of the plaintiff. After incurring huge expenditure for erection of platforms, reservoirs for storage of water, repairing the brine-channel for supply of seawater into the factory area etc. , the plaintiff started carrying on business. While matters stood thus, in view of the very good demand for aqua culture, according to the plaintiff, after taking permission from the Salt Department of the Government of India, i. e. , one of the defendants, he started aqua-culture in an extent of 20 Hectares of land on a rent at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per hectare.
( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, as the plaintiff was engaged more in the business of aqua-culture than the salt business for which the land was actually leased out, the government of India by its order dated 3-3-1998 cancelled the lease and directed the salt Factory Officer to take possession within 15 days of receipt of the said order. The said order of cancellation dated 3-3-1998 was questioned by the plaintiff in this court by way of a writ petition, but the same was dismissed holding that it is a matter of enforcement of the terms of a concluded contract and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and that the plaintiff can avail the other remedies that are available in law.
( 6 ) PURSUANT to the same, the plaintiff instituted the suit (O. S. No. 26 of 1998) questioning the said order of dated 3-3-1998 cancelling the lease and licence, seeking the relief of declaration that the said order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the registered lease deed dated 13-4-1990 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining all the defendants therein from enforcing the order dated 3-3-1998 and for other appropriate reliefs. Though a petition under Order 39 rule 1 C. P. C. for grant of interim injunction pending the suit was filed by the plaintiff, the same was rejected by the trial court.
( 7 ) IN the suit, the Deputy Salt commissioner, who is arrayed as 3rd defendant filed a detailed written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants, narrating as to why the Government of India had taken a decision to cancel the lease deed dated 3-3-1998 and consequently the licence. The averments in brief as per the written statement are that the purpose for which the lease of an extent of 563 acres was given in favour of the plaintiff is for production of salt but the said contract was frustrated as the plaintiff started doing more aqua-culture though the permission was only for an extent of 20 hectares, ignoring the production of salt. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff also sublet the lands to private parties.
( 8 ) ON the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the plaintiff examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-34 and the defendants examined D. Ws. 1
