SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(MP) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
W.P. No. 465 of 2002
Decided On: 25.01.2011

Headnote:(l) Lease -- in 1955 for establishing petrol pump lease for period of five years grunted --lessee continued in possession -- premium and yearly lease rent paid -- applications from time to time for permanent lease but not considered -- ultimately, on11.1.1995 permanent lease of 7000 square feet land with effect from 1971 to 2001 granted by State Government-premium of Rs.5,60, 000/- and yearly rent of Rs.42,000/- fixed on guideline of 1993-94 -- such amount so Fred not deposited by lessee -- no fault of lessee -- premium and lease rent cannot be fixed retrospectively -- order of cancellation of lease, demand of premium and lease rent with interest quashed -- petition partly allowed.

       Held: The bald statement in the return that petitioners predecessor company did not turn up to execute lease-deed will not be sufficient in order to hold that at any point of time the said company was at fault in absence of any correspondence submitted along with the return indicating that the said company was at fault. Even otherwise, no action was taken by the respondents terminating the lease of the petitioner in default of executing the lease-deed. [Para 2.1

       It has been mentioned that rent has been paid upto 1989-90 and copy of the rent receipt was also enclosed and under these circumstances it was requested to grant the permanent lease but nothing was done by the respondents. [Para 22

       Ultimately, the respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.1.1995 (document No.5) directed to allot patta of 7000 square feet land with effect from 1971 to 2001 fixing the premium of Rs.5,60,000/ and yearly rent of Rs.42,000/- by giving further direction that the. entire amount be deposited within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the order. [Para 23

       Held: On bare perusal of the averments made in the return this Court finds that by allotting the land in question on permanent lease basis the rent prevailing in the year 1993-94 was taken into consideration and in this regard the circular of the Government dated 2nd August, 1994 was taken into consideration. [Para 23

       If the decision was taken on 11.1.1995 vide document No.5 on the has is of the guideline of the year 1993-94, it should not have been applied retrospectively with effect from 1971 because the petitioner was not at fault at any point of time. On the contrary, he was repeatedly requesting the respondents to provide the permanent lease and continued to deposit the yearly rent. Hence, according to me the demand to pay the yearly rent as well as fixing the premium on the guidelines of the year 1993-94 is arbitrary so far as fixing the annual rent and the premium from 1971 to 11. .1995 and indeed, the yearly rent and the premium should have been fixed in accordance to the norms of the respondents prevailing from time to time from the year 1971 to 1995. The said action of the respondents is arbitrary and hence that part of the order of respondent No.1 dated 11.1.1995 (document No.5) directing to pay the premium and yearly rent with effect from 1971 to 11.1.1995 is set aside and quashed with a direction to respondent No.1 that guideline of the Government which was prevailing during these years from time to time and on the basis of those guidelines the premium and the yearly rent be fixed with effect from 1971 to 11.1.1995. [Para 23

       (2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.111 --lease -- efflux of period -- lessee continued in possession and depositing yearly rent -- status of lessee -- would still remain as lessee unless and until lease is determined in accordance with law.

       Held : If by the efflux of the period of lease the petitioner continued as a lessee and was depositing yearly rent which was being accepted by the respondents, its status would still remain as a lessee unless and until the lease is determined in accordance with law in terms of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. [Para 21

       ¼1½ iV~Vk && lu~ 1955 esa isVªksy iai LFkkfir djus ds fy, 5 o"kZ dh dkykof/k ds fy, iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k && iV~Vsnkj dk vfofPNu dCtk jgk && izhfe;e rFkk okf"kZd HkkVd fn;k x;k && LFkkbZ iV~Vs ds fy, le;≤ ij vkosnu fdarq fopkj ugha fd;k x;k && varr% jkT; ljdkj }kjk 11-1-1995 dks 7]000 oxZ QhV Hkwfe dk LFkkbZ iV~Vk 1971 ls 2001 rd iznku fd;k x;k && 1993&94 ekxZn‘kZd fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij 5]60]000@& izhfe;e rFkk 42]000@& okf"kZd HkkVd fu;r fd;k x;k && iV~Vsnkj }kjk ,slh jkf‘k tSlh fu;r dh xbZ tek ugha dh xbZ && iV~Vsnkj dh dksbZ =qfV ugha && izhfe;e rFkk okf"kZd HkkVd Hkwry{kh izHkko ls fu;r ugha fd;k tk ldrk && iV~Vk jn~n djus dk vkns‘k] C;kt lfgr izhfe;e rFkk iV~Vk HkkVd dh ek¡x vikLr dh xbZ && ;kfpdk Hkkxr% eatwj dh xbZA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fooj.kh esa lqLi"V dFku fd ;kph dh iwokZf/kdkjh daiuh iV~Vk&foys[k fu"iknu ds fy, mifLFkr ugha gqbZ] bl vuqdze esa fooj.k ds lkFk fdlh i=&Oogkj tks ;g n‘kkZrk gks fd mi;ZqDr daiuh dh dksbZ =qfV Fkh] ds vHkko esa ;g Bgjkus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gS fd mi;qZDr daiuh fdlh Hkh le; =qfV esa FkhA vU;Fkk Hkh] iV~Vk fu"iknu dh =qfV esa izR;FkhZx.k }kjk daiuh dk iV~Vk lekIr djus ds fy, dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh xbZA

       ¼iSjk 21½

       ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd 1989&90 rd HkkVd fn;k x;k gS rFkk HkkVd jlhn dh izkfIr Hkh layXu dh xbZ gS rFkk bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa LFkkbZ iV~Vk iznku fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ fdarq izR;FkhZx.k }kjk dqN ugha fd;k x;kA

       ¼iSjk 22½

       vrar%] izR;FkhZ dz- 1 }kjk 7]000 oxZ QhV Hkwfe dk lu~ 1971 ls 2001 rd :- 5]60]000@& izhfe;e rFkk :- 42]000@& okf"kZd HkkVd fu;e djrs gq, vkns‘k fnukad 11-1-1995 ¼nLrkost dz- 5½ }kjk iV~Vk vkcaVu djus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k] vU; funs‘k laiw.kZ jkf‘k vkns‘k tkjh djus dh rkjh[k ls Ng ekl ds Hkhrj tek djus dk fn;k x;kA

       ¼iSjk 23½

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fooj.kh esa fd, x, izdFkuksa ds ek= ifj‘khyu ls ;g U;k;ky; ikrk gS fd LFkkbZ iV~Vs ij iz‘uxr Hkwfe vkcafVr djrs gq, o"kZ 1993&94 esa izpfyr HkkVd ij fopkj fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk bl laca/k esa ljdkj dk izi= fnukad 2 vxLr 1994 fopkj esa fy;k x;k FkkA

       ¼iSjk 23½

       ;fn 1993&94 ds ekxZn‘kZd fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij 11-1-1995 ds nLrkost dz- 5 }kjk fu.kZ; fd;k x;k Fkk] bls lu~ 1971 ls Hkwry{kh izHkko ls ykxw ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk D;ksafd ;kph dh fdlh Hkh le; =qfV ugha FkhA blds izfrdwy og ckj&ckj izR;FkhZx.k ls LFkkbZ iV~Vk iznku djus ds fy, izkFkZuk rFkk fujarj okf"kZd HkkVd tek djrk jgkA vr,o] esjs er esa 1993&94 ds ekxZn‘kZd fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij okf"kZd HkkVd lkFk&lkFk izhfe;e fu;r djuk rFkk mlds Hkqxrku dh ek¡x djuk euekuh gS tSlk fd 1971 ls 11-1-1995 rd okf"kZd HkkVd rFkk izhfe;e fu;r fd;k gS rFkk okLro esa] okf"kZd HkkVd rFkk izhfe;e o"kZ 1971 ls 1995 esa le;≤ ij izR;FkhZx.k ds izpfyr ekud ds vk/kkj ij fu;r fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA izR;FkhZx.k dh dfFkr dkjZokbZ euekuh gS blfy, izR;FkhZx.k ds vkns‘k 11-1-1995 ¼nLrkost dzekad 5½ ftlds }kjk lu~ 1971 ls 1995 rd okf"kZd HkkVd rFkk izhfe;e Hkqxrku djus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k gS] og Hkkx izR;FkhZx.k dks bl funs‘k ds lkFk fujLr rFkk vikLr fd;k tkrk gS fd ljdkj dk bu o"kksZa ds nkSjku le;≤ ij ekxZn‘kZd fl)kar izpfyr Fkk rFkk mu ekxZn‘kZd fl)karksa ds vk/kkj ij lu~ 1971 ls 1995 rd dk izhfe;e rFkk okf"kZd HkkVd fu;r fd;k tk,A

       ¼iSjk 23½

       ¼2½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 111 && iV~Vk && dkykof/k dk O;rhr gks tkuk && iV~Vsnkj dk vfofPNu dCtk jgk rFkk okf"kZd HkkVd tek fd;k tkrk jgk && iV~Vsnkj dh izkfLFkfr && tc rd fd fof/k ds vuqlkj iV~Vs dk i;Zolku ugha gks tkrk rc rd iV~Vsnkj dh fLFkfr iV~Vsnkj ds :i esa jgsxhA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn iV~Vs dh dkykof/k O;rhr gks tkus ij ;kph fujarj iV~Vsnkj jgk rFkk okf"kZd HkkM+k tek djrk jgk tks izR;FkhZx.k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk jgk] bldh izkfLFkfr vc Hkh iV~Vsnkj ds :i esa jgsxh tc rd fd laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds :i esa fof/k ds vuqlkj iV~Vs dk i;Zolku ugha gks tkrkA

       ¼iSjk 21½

ORDER

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought quashment of the order dated 16-2-2001, passed by Collector, Sagar (document No. 10); quashment of demand raised by Tahsildar, Sagar dated 22-12-2001 (document No. 11); commanding Renewal of lease for a period of 30 years commencing from 1976; computation of lease rent on the basis of cost of land as it existed in the year 1976 and computation of lease rent and premium based on memorandum dated 3-3-1994.

2. The facts, in nutshell are that a lease of 0.27 acre (140' x 50') out of Khasra No. 279 of Mouza Rajakhedi, Sagar was granted to M/s Burmah Shell Oil and Storage Company by the Governor of Central Provinces and Berar represented by Deputy Commissioner, Sagar for establishing a retail outlet of petrol pump for a period of five years with effect from 4-11-1995 to 3-11-1960 on a yearly rent of Rs. 21=4 annas (document No. 1). Later on, the said Company applied for renewal of lease and rent of permanent lease to Collector and Naib Tahsildar, Sagar on 15-9-1966. The Company was communicated by Collector, Sagar that permanent lease has been granted on annual rent of Rs. 490/- and premium of Rs. 160/-. The Company was asked to pay the rent and arrange to execute document of permanent lease. A copy of the intimation has been filed as document No. 2.

3. It is the further case of the Petitioner that Bharat Petroleum Corporation is successor of Burmah Shell Oil and Storage Company. Since the period of renewed lease was going to be lapsed, the Petitioner applied for renewal of the lease period which was registered as Case No. 22A/20(1)76-77 by the Nazul Officer, Sagar. According to the Petitioner, the decision to renew the lease period was pending on the table of the Respondents. The senior officers of the Company were called by Collector, Sagar on 17-12-1999 and discussed in respect of renewal of lease period and in this regard letter dated 23-11-1991 (document No. 4) has been filed by the Petitioner, but the lease period was not renewed. Nevertheless, the retail outlet of the Petitioner was continued.

4. The record of the proceedings relating to renewal of the lease period was shuttling between the Tahsildar, Nazul Officer, Collector, Commissioner and the office of the Secretariate at Bhopal. Ultimately, it was lost, with the result it took lessor nearly 19 years to convey to the Petitioner that State Government has consented to renew lease for the period 1971 to 2001. Copy of the intimation in this regard has been filed by the Petitioner as document No. 5. However, during the intervening period, since the decision to renew lease was taking much time, lease rent was demanded by the Respondents and the same was deposited by the Petitioner till the year 2001. The receipts acknowledging payment collectively have been filed as document No. 6.

5. On renewing the lease period vide document No. 5 dated 11-1-1995 with effect from 1971 to 2001 the State of Madhya Pradesh directed to provide area 7000 square feet to the Petitioner for a premium of Rs. 5,60,000/- on yearly rent ' Rs. 42,000/- for the period 1971 to 2001 and granted permanent lease on the conditions which are referred in document No. 5 dated 11-1-1995. One of the condition which is embodied in this document is that within six months from 11-1-1995 the Petitioner shall be obliged to deposit the requisite premium or else the allotment order shall stand rejected automatically. It is the further case of the Petitioner that although an area 7000 square feet has been directed to be provided, but, in fact the Respondents were having possession of 3375 square feet only which was given to the Petitioner and rest of the portion was in the possession of the trespassers and in this regard Petitioner submitted Respondents to remove the encroachment but the land was not got vacated and vacant possession of the encroached land was never given to the Petitioner, hence, on the ba

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top