Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
M/s Apple Valley Resort Private Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondent
CWP No. 8958 of 2011
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sanjeevani Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General.
Point of Law: Lease is a consensual agreement and parties thereto derive rights and obligations under terms of contract of lease.
Headnote:
H.P. Lease Rules, 1993 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Land - Execute and register a lease deed - Direct respondents to execute and register a lease deed in favour of petitioner for a further period of 15 and half years commencing from date of its execution and registration in respect of land – There was no condition in first lease deed executed between petitioner and respondents that period of ten years would be subject to extension - Para 12.
Finding of the Court:
There was no condition in first lease deed executed between petitioner and respondents that period of ten years would be subject to extension - Respondents also are not under any legal obligation to grant a fresh lease to petitioner - Allegation of petitioner that it was prevented from utilizing lease period due to acts of omission and commission on part of respondents need not be gone into by Court in instant proceedings for reasons firstly, that issue involves intricately disputed question of facts, secondly, parties had specifically agreed to refer such matters to arbitration of Commissioner i.e. Commissioner of concerned division as per Clauses 13 and 14 of lease deed and lastly, even if, contention of petitioner is upheld, inevitable consequence necessarily will not be issuance of mandamus as sought in petition.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:
(a) Identify, demarcate on the spot the leased property measuring 1 bigha adjoining to Khasra No. 7299 situate in Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais (Daunsa-Ri-Bihal) Tehsil and District Kullu, which was leased in favour of the petitioner-Company vide Registered Lease Deed dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure PC) and to thereafter again handover actual possession of the same on the spot after its proper demarcation and thereafter to mutate the same in favour of the petitioner Company and effect necessary entries in the Revenue Record.
(b) Direct the respondents to execute and register a lease deed in favour of the petitioner-Company for a further period of 15 and half years commencing from the date of its execution and registration in respect of the land described in para (a) supra.
(c) Restrain the respondents from interfering in the peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment of the leased land adjoining to Khasra No. 7299, situate in Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu.”
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are as under:
2.1 Petitioner is running a tourist resort on the right bank of river Beas under the name and style of M/s Apple Valley Resort Private Ltd. in Village Mohal, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner proposed to link its resort with highway on the left bank of river Beas with a rope-way/cable-car and for such purpose approached the respondents for grant of lease of a piece of Government land measuring 1 bigha on the left bank of river Beas abutting the highway. Respondents accepted the proposal of petitioner and leased a piece of land measuring 1 bigha abutting khasra No. 7299 in Village Daunsa-Ri-Bihal, Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. A lease deed was executed and registered on 5.2.2002 whereby the above noted piece of land was leased to petitioner for a period of 10 years. The leased money was settled at Rs.1056/- per annum.
2.2 Respondent No.2 cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner and such fact was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 18.2.2005. The cancellation was made on the premise that the lease was in contravention of provisions of the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993.
2.3 Petitioner assailed communication dated 18.02.2005 before this Court by way of CWP No. 543 of 2005. The petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 12.06.2007 by this Court in following terms:
“The respondents have not pointed out which Rule or terms and conditions of the lease have been violated by the petitioner. The bald assertion made in letter dated 18.2.2005 is that the lease is cancelled as per the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993 without mentioning what particular rule has been violated. The lease could only be cancelled once executed as per H.P. Lease Rules, 1993 if there was violation of any of the terms and conditions of the lease.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner has not been heard before the cancellation of lease vide letter dated 5.2.2005. The petitioner on the basis of the promise held out had altered his position, thus attracting the principles of promissory estoppel.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure PK dated 18.2.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner while raising the infrastructure for the purpose of operation of cable car/bridge on Khasra No. 7299 situate in Daunsa-Ri-Bihal, Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. There shall be no order as to costs.”
2.4 As evident from the concluding para of above noted judgment, directions were issued to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in Khasra No. 7299. Later, it was found to be a clerical error as no portion of Khasra No. 7299 had ever been leased in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the land comprised in Khasra No. 7299 belonged to private
