Back
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Shah
Urvakunj Nicotine Ltd.
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 569 of 20121—Decided on 16/07/2012
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 — Section 49 read with Sections 33 and 34 — Land Policy of Major Ports, 2010 — Clause 6.2.2.2 — Letters Patent Appeal — Order of Eviction — Appeal — Interim relief — Application for to protect their possession — On ground of their supposed right to renewal of lease — Scope of — Finding as to — It is clear from the relevant facts on record that even the period of extension of the lease granted to applicants have expired on 01.04.2011 — Now for consideration of further extention renewal or fresh grant of lease clause 6.2.2.2 of Land Policy 2010 applies and it is followed — Therefore it is impossible to hold that as on the date of filing of applications the appellant had any legal right to claim or continue possession of the lands in question or to hold that they were not in unauthorised occupation of premises — Prima facie it would be very difficult to hold that illegal occupation of land by appellant ought to have been protected — There is further nothing on record to suggest that non-renewal of leases beyond 01.04.2011 was in any way illegal or arbitrary — There is no case in favour of appellants either in Law or equity for grant of any discretionary relief — In absence of a reasonably good prima facie case in favour of appellant no case of interim relief need be considered.
Held :
The claim of the appellants for interim relief is primarily based on their supposed right to be considered for renewal of leases which were granted to them and of which the terms have expired since long. Even the period of extension of the lease granted to the appellants at the behest of the Central Government, with retrospective effect, have expired on 01.4.2011. Now for consideration of further extension, renewal or fresh grant of leases, Clause 6.2.2.2 of the Land Policy for Major Ports, 2010 has to be applied and followed. Therefore, it is impossible to hold that, as on the date of filing of the petitions, the appellants had any legal right to claim or continue possession of the lands in question, or to contend that they were not in unauthorized occupation of the premises. Therefore, even in absence of any other litigation pending in another High Court or successive orders of such court, which are binding on the respondents, it would, prima facie, be very difficult to hold that illegal occupation by the appellants of the leased lands ought to have been protected. There is nothing on record to suggest that non-renewal of leases beyond 01.04.2011 was in any way illegal or arbitrary or that KPT or Union of India was under any legal obligation to exclusively consider the cases of the appellant for grant of lease for any further period.
[Para 9.1]
Therefore, Court does not find any prima facie case in favour of the appellants, either in law or in equity, for grant of any discretionary relief, particularly when practically the claim now is for restoration rather than protection of possession of the lands in question. In absence of a reasonably good prima facie case in favour of the appellants, the issues of balance of convenience and irreparable loss pale into insignificance and irrelevance. [Para 9.1]
Law Laid Down :
Every person has a right to approach a Court of Law if he has a grievance for which Law provides a remedy.
D.H. Waghela, J.—All these Letters Patent Appeals are preferred from the common oral order dated 27.02.2012 in a group of petitions which are admitted but in which interim relief as prayed in the petitions are refused by the impugned order. Broadly, the background of relevant facts is that all the original petitioners and present appellants were granted separate parcels of land on lease by Kandla Port Trust (for short, “KPT”) and the period of those leases had expired in the year 2003-2004. Thereafter, pending renewal of those leases or grant of fresh leases, they continued to be in possession of the leased lands. Pursuant to and during pendency of a public interest litigation, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 11550 of 2009 in the High Court of Delhi, KPT informed the appellants that the period of lease was renewed by the Union of India upto 31.03.2011 and also conveyed its decision not to renew/extend the term of lease and rights thereunder. Therefore, the appellants were called upon by letter dated 26.8.2011 to hand over peaceful possession of the subject land to the Officer on Special Duty (Estate), KPT. Being aggrieved by that decision and communication, the appellants have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayers, inter alia, to stay further proceeding pursuant to the eviction notice and recovery and/or adjustment of compensation bills, and such interim reliefs having been denied by the impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. It may be pertinent to note here that, after the impugned order dated 27.2.2012 and filing of the present appeals with civil applications for grant of interim relief, the appeals were taken up for admission hearing in the last week of March, 2012; and after extensive admission hearing for almost three days, the appellants had sought adjournment on the basis that transfer petitions were filed by the appellants in the Supreme Court which were coming up for hearing on 13.04.2012. Thereafter, admission hearing of the appeals was resumed in the third week of June, 2012 and intermittently continued for two weeks with the understanding that the appeals were being heard for final disposal. In the meantime, possession of all the leased lands are stated to have been taken over by KPT, even as proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated and orders of Authorized Officer under that Act were also carried in appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Gandhidham. Some of the appellants herein had even challenged before this Court the denial by learned Additional District Judge of interim relief against the orders of Authorized Officer, and those petitions are also by now dismissed. Thus, in short, the present set of appeals have practically become infructuous. But the appellants having insisted upon order on merits, dealing with their contentions, it has become necessary to deal with the contentions.
2. The undisputed relevant facts are that the period of lease in case of each appellant had expired in the year 2003 or 2004. In some of the cases where the lease deed provided for an option to renew the lease, the lessees had applied for renewal and KPT had resolved to renew the lease subject to approval of the Central Government and revision of the rate of rent. While consideration and decision of the Central Government to renew such leases were pending, a writ petition by way of public interest litigation was presented before the Delhi High Court, seeking eviction of the persons in occupation of around 16000 acres of government land and for direction to lease out such lands to private parties only on the basis of competitive bidding. The petitioners before the Delhi High Court also sought an independent investigation by a special investigation team into the role of officers of the Ministry of Shipping and KPT in allowing illegal occupation of government land at KPT. On 09.09.2009, the Delhi High Court d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
