HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Sathya Studios (P) Limited represented by its Managing Director, K. Swaminathan Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Madras & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 30167 of 2008 & W.M.P. No. 9316 of 2023
Decided On : 30-03-2023
Public Interest - Government Land Lease - G.O.Ms.No.199, Revenue Department dated 21.01.1970 - G.O.Ms.No.1263, Revenue Department dated 23.05.1975 - G.O.Ms.No.2243, Revenue Department dated 22.11.1977 - G.O.Ms.No.1579 dated 27.06.1980 - Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & another - Ram and Shyam company vs state of Haryana and ors - Netai Bag and ors vs state of west Bengal and ors - Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. - M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & others - M/S Style (dress land ) vs Union Territory Chandigarh and anr
Fact of the Case:
The Government leased out land to Sathya Studio's for 30 years. The lease expired in 1998, but the lessee continued to possess the land. The Government demanded arrears of lease rent, and upon non-payment, resumed the land. The lessee challenged the resumption.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lessee was a chronic defaulter and had no right to possess the land after the lease expired. The Government followed due process and acted in the public interest. The court rejected the relief sought by the lessee and directed the Government to protect the land, recover arrears, and proceed with a public welfare project.
Issues: 1. Validity of land resumption by the Government. 2. Lessee's right to possess the land after lease expiration. 3. Public interest in the formation of a new link road.
Ratio Decidendi: The Government's actions must be in conformity with reason and public interest. The lessee had ample opportunities to pay arrears but failed to do so. The Government's decision to resume the land and proceed with the public welfare project was valid and in the public interest.
Final Decision: The relief sought by the lessee was rejected. The Government was directed to protect the land, recover arrears, and proceed with the public welfare project. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in proceedings Rc.No. (B3)/4958/1990 dated 01.12.2008 and quash the same.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 01.12.2008 and to quash the same.
Factual Background in Nutshell:
2. In G.O.Ms.No.199, Revenue Department dated 21.01.1970, the Government leased out the land belongs to the Government measuring 1 Cawnie, 14 Grounds, 2340 Sq.ft to the Sathya Studio''s from 08.01.1968 for a period of 30 years at the rate of 7% of the market value of the land as lease rent. On 30.01.1970, possession was handed over to the writ petitioner / Sathya Studio''s Private Limited. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.3887, Revenue Department dated 02.07.1973, ordered the lease rent to be collected from 31.01.1970 i.e., the date on which the possession of the Government land was handed over to the lessee / Sathya Studio''s Private Limited.
3. In G.O.Ms.No.1263, Revenue Department dated 23.05.1975, the Government ordered to revise the lease rent for the leased out land at Rs.1,26,315/- per annum with effect from 01.01.1975. On 12.07.1976, the Higher Education Department permitted the petitioner to start Dr.MGR Janaki College of Arts and Science for women in their patta land situated adjacent to the leased out Government land. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2243, Revenue Department dated 22.11.1977 ordered that the lease granted to Sathya Studio''s was restricted upto 26.05.1975 and ordered to transfer the land to Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Department, but the possession was not taken by the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Department and it was continued to be with the lessee at that point of time.
4. On 27.06.1980, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1579 ordered to cancel the fixation of lease rent issued in G.O.Ms.No.1263 dated 23.05.1975. The petitioner / Sathya Studio''s submitted a request application dated 31.10.1997 to extend the lease beyond the period of 30 years. The 30 years lease period expired on 07.01.1998. However, the lessee continued to be in the possession of the leased out premises. On 02.05.2003, the District Collector had submitted the lease rent proposal to the Commissioner for Land Acquisition (CLA). On 04.07.2003, the CLA had recommended the lease in favour of the petitioner for 10 years beyond 07.11.1998 to the Government. On 17.09.2004, the Tahsildar had sent a demand notice for arrears of lease amount to the petitioner for the period from 1998 based on the audit objection raised regarding non-collection of arrears of lease amount from the petitioner. The details regarding the demand is as under:
1. Defaulter demand (07-01-1995 to 06-01-1998) - Rs.6,32,23,639/-
2. Fresh demand (07-01-1998 to 31-12-2004) – Rs.24,77,55,386/- In all Total Rs.31,09,79,023/-
5. On 08.01.2007, the second demand notice was issued by the District Collector to the writ petitioner / lessee for payment of lease arrears amount of Rs.31,09,79,023/-. The petitioner submitted a reply on 29.11.2008, seeking further time without making any payment towards arrears of lease amount as demanded.
6. Further on 12.11.2008, a show cause notice No.B3/4958/1990, was issued by Tahsildar to the lessee to pay the lease arrears amount failing which, show the reasons as to why the lease land should not be resumed back to Government from petitioner. Since neither there was a response nor the petitioner paid the arrears of lease amount, the Competent Authorities on 01.12.2008 resumed the Government land from the lessee through a transfer charge certificate and report was submitted by the Tahsildar to the District Collector.
7. Aggrieved by the order of resumption of the Government land passed by the Tahsildar, the lessee filed the present writ petition challenging the resumption of land in Tahsildar proceedings dated 01.12.20
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West bengal (1975) 2 SCR 674; (AIR 1975 SC 266)
M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & others [1997 (7) SCC 592]
Punnan Thomas v. State of Kerala [AIR 1969 Ker 81] (FB)
Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [1987 (2) SCC 295]
State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. [1986 (4) SCC 566]
Government actions must be in conformity with reason and public interest. The Government cannot act arbitrarily and must act for the public good.
The court ruled that leases granted under conflict of interest and without adherence to natural justice principles are void ab initio, emphasizing the need for public officials to maintain integrity ....
The government cannot grant largess arbitrarily and must act in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational, or irrelevant. Violations of land assignment conditions, including....
The Court emphasized the duty of the Authorities to protect the financial interest of the State and the importance of periodic review of Government largesse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resumption of land assigned to the Appellants violated their fundamental rights under Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. T....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.