Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.R. Sarangi, C.J., Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Parmeshwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 461 of 2023
Decided On : 09-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG, Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate, Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate
The court upheld that lease conditions permit cancellation without notice if the lessee fails to utilize the land for its intended purpose, thus no violation of natural justice occurred.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 - Section 6(2)(a) - Principles of natural justice - Cancellation of lease without notice - Appellant contended that cancellation violated natural justice principles; however, lease conditions allowed termination without notice if not utilized for specified purpose - Court found no error in dismissal of writ petition. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Lease Agreement - Terms and conditions - Specific conditions in lease deed permit cancellation without notice if lessee fails to utilize land for intended purpose - Court upheld authority's action based on lease terms. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the cancellation of a lease for failure to establish industrial production, arguing violation of natural justice due to lack of notice prior to cancellation.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the cancellation of the lease, stating that the lease conditions permitted termination without notice if the land was not utilized as specified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of the lease without notice violated the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the specific terms of the lease deed allowed for cancellation without notice if the lessee failed to utilize the land for the intended purpose, thus no violation of natural justice occurred.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned AC to Advocate General and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for the respondents-BIADA.
2. The appellant files the instant intra-court appeal challenging order dated 27.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2449 of 2022 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that plea of principles of natural justice is not tenable on law or fact.
3. Learned senior counsel vehemently contended that before cancellation of lease at least, notice is to be issued to the appellant and as such there should be compliance of the principles of natural justice but the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the same and consequently, has dismissed the writ petition, as a result the instant appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is right that the lease deed was executed between the parties and the appellant is bound to the conditions stipulated in the lease deed thereby the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record it appears that the appellant has allotted 0.40 acre of land of BIADA for processing of cable plates vide allotment letter no. 426 dated 15.06.1989 in the name of M/s Bhagwati Udyog for 99 years lease. The allotment has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 30.9.1999 on the ground that there was no industrial production in the said unit. Therefore, challenging the said order, the appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2449 of 2022, wherein it has been stated that cancellation of the registered lease deed has been ordered without hearing the petitioner which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. On perusal of record, it appears that right has been closed of the appellant pursuant to lease deed executed between the parties and the lease deed executed for the specific purpose and in the event, the appellant is failed to perform his duty and responsibility in terms of the lease deed, lease is to be cancelled even without notice. Therefore, Clause XIV reads as under:
“xiv).That the Lessees shall use the land for the specified purpose within a period of six months form the date of the lease failing which the lease may be terminated and the Lessee evicted from the lands without notice. In case extension is required it can be granted within the discretion of the lessor.”
7. In view of the terms of the conditions of the lease deed, if the Lessees shall use the land for the specified purpose within a period of six months from the date of the lease failing which the lease may be terminated and the Lessee be evicted from the lands without notice.
8. Therefore, in view of the specific condition of the lease deed it is well known to the appellant that if the land will not be utilized for the purpose for which it is granted, it will be automatically cancelled without notice.
9. The claim made by the appellant as per the provisions contained in Section 6 sub-section 2(a) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, which reads as under:
(2)(a) In case necessary effective steps are not taken within the fixed period to establish the industry, the authority shall in such condition, cancel the allotment of allotted plot/shed and also forfeit the amount deposited in this connection. The authority shall, before cancelling the allotment allow one month time to the allottee to put up his case, the allottee on being dissatisfied with the order of the Authority may file an appeal to the State Government within one month and the State Government shall, after due consideration dispose it of within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal.
10. In terms of the condition of the lease deed the claim made by the appellant for compliance of natural justice is not required and further the appe
