RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

Writ Petition No. 6923 of 2016

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2016 passed by respondent No. 2/Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), Nasik, by which Nasik Appeal No. 24 of 2016 instituted at the behest of respondent No. 5 and 25 of 2016 filed by respondent No. 4 have been allowed and the order of the District Collector, dated 3.11.2015 has been set aside.

5. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

6. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(a) C. Albert Morris vs. K. Chandrasekaran and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 228

(b) Baba and Company, Nellore vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ALT-2012-2-535

(c) S.V. Matha Prasad vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Laws (Mad)-2011-3-120.

7. The undisputed factors that emerge from these proceedings in the light of the record and the submissions of the learned Advocates are as under:-

(i) The location of the site at issue is CTS No. 1854-A, admeasuring 14850 sq. ft. within Municipal Council limits of Shrirampur, District Ahmendagar.

(ii) The original owner of the said property was Sagunabai Gopalrao Mokashi, who entered into a lease deed with Standard Vacuum Oil Co. on 23.6.1954. The lease period started from 1.2.1954 and lasted till 31.1.1984.

(iii) It was renewed for a further period of 30 years as is provided in the lease agreement by way of a voluntary extension clause, upto 31.1.2014.

(iv) A RCS No. 553 of 1985 was filed by the original landlord under the Bombay Rent Act seeking eviction and possession of the suit property.

(v) Original landlord, who had a lease deed with Standard Vacuum Oil Company, had sold the property to Kesharmal Kankariya during the pendency of the suit.

(vi) Shri Kankariya passed away on 16.1.2011. Prior to his death he bequeathed the property by a will deed to the petitioner.

(vii) The petitioner approached the District Collector of Ahmednagar under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for seeking revocation of the no objection granted to HPCL by the Collector, by proceeding dated 31.7.2014.

(viii) By order dated 3.11.2015, respondent No. 3/District Collector allowed the application of the petitioner and concluded that the no objection certificate deserves to be recalled.

(ix) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 approached respondent No. 2/Appellate Authority on 16.11.2015 by filing an appeal under Section 154(2) of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(x) By order dated 30.1.2016, the appellate authority has set aside the order of the District Collector and has restored the no objection certificate granted to respondent No. 4 HPCL.

8. Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 could not have continued to store petroleum products in the concerned premises unless a lease existed between the landlord and respondent No. 4. In the absence of a lease, respondent No. 4 would not have the legal right to use the said premises for the purpose for which it was leased out for the first time in 1954. He specifically places reliance upon paragraph Nos. 33 and 34 of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of C. Albert Morris (supra). He also placed reliance upon paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 of the judgment in the Baba and Company Case (supra) and S.V. Matha Prasad (supra).

9. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has not pointed out any error or perversity in the impugned order and hence, this petition be dismissed with costs.

10. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4/HPCL has strenuously contended that the location at issue has been surreptitiously sold out by the original landlord. Respondent No. 4 could not be kept in the dark if the said property was to be sold out keeping in view the lease agreement between the two sides. The Civil Suit pr