Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 292
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ o (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,l-ds- xaxsys rFkk U;k- Mh-ds- ikyhoky
S.K. Gangele and D.K. Paliwal, JJ.
ek/ko bULVhV~;wV vkWQ VsDukWyksth ,aM lkbal fo- esl- fledks fcjyk fyfe- Xokfy;j rFkk vU;
Madhav Institute of Technology and Science v. M/s. Cimmco Birla Ltd. Gwalior and others
fjV vihy Øekad 374 lu~ 2009 rFkk 610 lu~ 2010 ¼Xokfy;j½% fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1103@2003 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 4978@2009 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 31-7-2009 ds fo#)( fu.khZr fnukad 15-5-2013A
Writ Appeals No. 374 of 2009 and 610 of 2010 (Gwalior): against order dated 31.7.2009 passed in W.P. No. 1103/2003 and W.P. No. 4978/2009; Decided on 15.5.2013.
Ogh-ds- Hkkj}kt lfgr vuos’k tSu fjV vihy Ø- 374@09 esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls rFkk fjV vihy Ø- 610@10 esa izR;FkhZ Ø- 2 dh vksj ls( jksfgr vk;Z lfgr iz’kkar ‘kekZ nksuksa vihyksa esa izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dh vksj ls( foosd [ksM+dj] mi egkf/koäk fjV vihy Ø- 374@09 esa izR;FkhZ Ø- 2 ls 5@jkT; rFkk fjV vihy Ø- 610@2010 esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj lsA
V.K. Bharadwaj with Anvesh Jain for appellant in W.A. No. 374/2009 and for respondent No. 2 in W.A. No. 610/2010; Rohit Arya with Prashant Sharma for respondent No. 1 in both appeals; Vivek Khedkar, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 2 to 5/State in W.A. No. 374/09 and for appellant in W.A. No. 610/2010.
Headnote:¼1½ iV~Vk & Xokfy;j jkT; }kjk daiuh dks m|ksx LFkkfir djus ds fy, Hkwfe dk ,d [kaM vuqnku ds :i esa iznku fd;k x;k & dksbZ fofufnZ”V dkykof/k mfYyf[kr ugha & iV~Vk jídj.k ds fo”k; esa dqN Hkh mfYyf[kr ugha & ,slk vuqnku vkR;afrd gS & ,slh Hkwfe ‘kkldh; Hkwfe ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr ugha dh tk ldrh vFkok fdlh dks vkcafVr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 11 ls 20½
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 181 RkFkk 182 & jkT; ljdkj }kjk HkwriwoZ daiuh dks Hkwfe ds ,d vU; [kaM dk iV~Vk 99 o”kZ dh dkykof/k ds fy, iznku fd;k x;k & m|ksx foHkkx }kjk Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa vH;fiZr ugha dh xbZ & iV~Vs dh fdlh ‘krZ dk Hkax ugha & iV~Vk jídj.k ds fo”k; esa dksbZ vkns’k ugha & ,slh Hkwfe u rks ljdkjh Hkwfe ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj u gh fdlh dks vkcafVr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2012½ 7 ,l lh lh 278 rFkk ¼2011½ 7 ,l lh lh 493 vuqlfjrA 1991 jk fu 53 izHksfnrA 2009 jk fu 1¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼1998½ 5 ,l lh lh 554] ¼2006½ 12 ,l lh lh 642] 2007 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 519 rFkk 2007 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 5350 fufnZ”VA ¼iSjk 11 ls 20½
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 115 rFkk 116 & dh O;kfIr & Hkwfe ds nks [kaM & Xokfy;j jkT; }kjk daiuh dks ,d Hkw&[kaM vuqnku ds :i eas iznku fd;k x;k & ,d vU; Hkw&[kaM jkT; ljdkj }kjk HkwriwoZ daiuh dks 99 o”kZ dh dkykof/k ds fy, iznku fd;k x;k & vuqnku jídj.k ds fo”k; esa dqN Hkh mfYyf[kr ugha & ,slk vuqnku vkR;afrd gS & jkT; ljdkj }kjk iznŸk iV~Vs dh fdlh ‘krZ dk Hkax ugha & iV~Vk jídj.k ds fo”k; esa dksbZ vkns’k ugha & ,slh Hkwfe ljdkjh Hkwfe ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr ugha dh tk ldrh vFkok fdlh dks vkcafVr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 11 ls 20½
¼4½ #X.k vkS|ksfxd daiuh ¼fo’ks”k mica/k½ vf/kfu;e] 1985 & /kkjk 22 & daiuh dks m|ksx LFkkfir djus ds fy, Hkwfe dk vuqnku rFkk iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k & daiuh #X.k gks xbZ & daiuh ds ifjlekiu ds fo”k; esa funsZ’k & vkS|ksfxd vkSj foŸkh; iqufuZekZ.k cksMZ ds le{k yafcr & cksMZ dh vuqKk ds fcuk daiuh ds fo#) dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2006½ 12 ,l lh lh 642 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ls 24½
(1) Lease -- one block of land granted as grant by Gwalior State to company for establishment of factory -- no specific period mentioned -- nothing mentioned about cancellation of lease -- such grant is absolute -- such land cannot be recorded as Government land or cannot be allotted to anybody. [Paras 11 to 20
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 181 and 182 -- lease of land of another block for period of 99 years granted by State Government to erstwhile company -- land not surrendered by Industries Department in favour of State Government -- no any breach of conditions of lease -- no order about cancellation of lease -- such land neither can be recorded as Government land nor can be allotted to anybody. (2012) 7 SCC 278 and (2011) 7 SCC 493 followed. 1991 RN 53 distinguished. 2009 RN 1 (SC), (1998) 5 SCC 554, (2006) 12 SCC 642, 2007 (2) MPLJ 519 and 2007 AIR SCW 5350, referred to. [Paras 11 to 20
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 115 and 116 -- scope of -- two blocks of land -- one block granted as grant by Gwalior State to company -- another block granted by State Government to erstwhile company for period of 99 years -- nothing mentioned about cancellation of grant -- such grant is absolute -- no breach of any condition of lease granted by State Government -- no order about cancellation of lease -- such land cannot be recorded as Government land or cannot be allotted to anybody. [Paras 11 to 20
(4) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 -- S. 22 -- lease and grant of land granted to company for establishment of factory -- company became sick -- reference regarding winding up of company -- pending before Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction -- no action can be taken against company without permission of Board. (2006) 12 SCC 642 followed. [Paras 22 to 24
Gangele J.1. These two writ appeals have been filed against the common order dt.31.7.2009 passed in W.P.No.1103/2003 and W.P.No.4978/2009.
2. The respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. Initially the name of the company was “Texmaco (Gwalior) Limited”. Subsequently, it was changed as “Cimmco Birla Ltd.” An agreement was entered on 7th April 1947 between Govt. of Gwalior State through its Minister for Industries, Commerce and Communication and M/s Birla Brothers Ltd. Gwalior State granted permission to establish certain industries. It also granted sufficient and adequate land or lands for the purpose of establishment of factory and also granted other benefits including exemption from payment of tax. In pursuance to the aforesaid agreement, Secretary, Industries Commerce and Communication Gwalior Govt. ordered that a plot “A” was handed over to the Director of the Cimmco company and possession of a triangular plot No. “A” was given to the company on 24th May 1947. The area of the plot is mentioned in a map attached with the order. The plot area of the plot was 32 Bigha 9 Biswa consisting of 15 khasra nos. The details are as under :-
Khasras No. Area Bighas Biswas
465 2 19
1358 - 8
1359 3 1
1360 2 -
1361 4 4
1363 2 1
1364 2 3
1365 5 4
1366 2 6
1367 1 15
1368 - 16
1369 2 4
1370 1 17
1371 1 4
1372 - 5
Total 32 9
3. Govt. of M.P. also granted a lease to the company named as Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company Ltd. for a period of 99 years vide lease deed dated. 8th November 1963 of total area 18.75 ekars situate at village Ghospura of Tahsil Gwalior khasra numbers 438, 439, 440, 441, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 459, 460, 461, 1377, 1478, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1384, 1392, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1402, 1403 total 31. The company established factory over the aforesaid portion of the land. It also constructed residential accommodation for its workers over some portion of the land. After near about 40 years,3 the company became sick and it was referred to BIFR under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to SICA). The reference was made to this effect on 14.11.2000 and a case was registered as case No.372/2000.
4. The Nazul Officer vide letter dt. 2nd November 2002 informed the Director, MITS to deposit 10% of the total amount of Rs.60,81,00,000/- as value of the land, which was sought for allotment of land of survey Nos.1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 455, 1392 and 1394 situate at village Gospura by the Institute. It is also mentioned in the letter that in accordance with the order of the State of M.P. Revenue Department dt.20th Sept. 2002, the Institute was required to deposit 10% amount. The respondent No.1 came to know about the aforesaid fact when a news was published in the local newspaper, then it challenged the aforesaid letter dt.2nd November 2002 in W.P.No. No. 1103/2003. The petitioner pleaded in the petition that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner company on lease for a period of 99 years. The petitioner company had been paying the rent and there was no violation of terms and conditions of the lease deed. The petitioner company was not issued any show cause notice in regard to termination of lease neither the lease was terminated, hence, the order of allotment of the land to MITS (appellant in W.A.No.374/2009) is arbitrary and illegal.
5. Petitioner/respondent No.1 also filed a petition W.P.No.4978/2007 and prayed a relief that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land of survey No.1371 and possession of the petitioner be protected.
6. Learned Single Judge heard both the petitions simultaneously and allowed both the writ petitions. The order date 2.11.2002 (Annexure P/1) communication issued by the Naz
