Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal
For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar

ORDER : – This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16-3-2020 (Annexure-P/10) passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been asked to return back the land to respondent No. 3 which was allotted to the petitioner on lease for a period of 30 years i.e. from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-2019.

2. By urging multifarious grounds assailing the action of the respondents, the petitioner has sought following reliefs : –

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record leading to issuance of the impugned communication/letter dated 16-3-2020 (Annexure-P/10) from the Respondent No. 3. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned communication/letter dated 16-3-2020, passed by the Respondent No. 3, contained in Annexure-P/10. (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application (Annexure-P/8) for conversion of land in question from lease hold into free hold within the specified time frame. (iii-a) The impugned orders dated 12-5-2020 passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 contained in Annexures-P-11 and P-12 respectively be set aside. (iii-b) The possession of the property in question be directed to be restored to the petitioner. (iii-c) That, the Resolution No. 1014 dated 16-10-2019 of the Municipal Council, Harda (Respondent No. 3) contained in Annexure-R-3/7 be set aside. (iv) That, this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to directed the respondents not to take possession of the land in question from the petitioner even if an application for conversion of land from lease hold land to free hold is rejected by the respondents as the petitioner has a right to submit an application for renewal of lease in accordance with Clauses-3 and 12 of the lease deed dated 16-8-1989 (Annexure-P-2), Rule 17 of Rules of 2016 (Annexure-P-5) and order dated 1-8-2016 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court in Writ Appeal No. 459/2009 and if such an application is submitted the same is required to be considered by the respondent No. 3. (v) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter be also granted to the petitioner. (vi) Cost of the petition.”

3. To resolve the controversy involved in the case necessary facts are required to be taken note of which in a nutshell are;

(3.1) That the petitioner is a registered partnership firm, which was registered in the year 1983 in the name and style “M/s Narmada Ginning and Pressing Factory” and is engaged in the business of Ginning and Pressing of Cotton and also Dal and Oil Mills. The petitioner-firm have three units located over the land of different khasras i.e. Khasra Nos. 58/1, 58/2 and 58/11, total area around 8.95 acres. This land has been purchased by the petitioner through six different registered sale-deeds dated 9-1-1953, 12-3-1953, 13-5-1953, 30-5-1953, 6-7-1953 and 1-2-1953. Adjoining to the aforesaid land, Khasra No. 56 having an area of 6.43 acres belonging to respondent No. 3 (Municipal Council, Harda) was situated and the petitioner since interested to construct godown and residential quarters for its labourers on the said land, therefore, they moved an application for granting lease in respect of the said land to respondent No. 3 in the year 1966.

(3.2) The lease was granted to the petitioner for 6.43 acres of land which is a part land of Khasra No. 56 situated at