Judgment :

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No. 35734 of 2009. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2) Being aggrieved by the final order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 5469 of 2008 setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer rejecting the application moved by the Respondent-Nerbudda Valley Refrigerated Products Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") for the grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to raise constructions on the leased land after changing the land use from industrial purpose to commercial purpose, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35734 of 2009. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the respondent-Company alleging that though the Nazul Officer passed an order, has not granted NOC and disposed of the same not in accordance with the Circular of the State Government, filed a Contempt Petition (C) 173 of 2009 before the High Court. By order dated 13.10.2009, the High Court after finding that the Nazul Officer has dealt with the matter beyond the Circular dated 14.02.1966 of the State Government and not followed its earlier order, directed him to personally present before the Court on 27.10.2009 to explain his "misconduct" in passing such order. Questioning the said order, the State of Madhya Pradesh has also filed SLP (C) 35732 of 2009. Since both the orders of the High Court relate to the same issue, these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.

3) Heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastav, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

4) The issues which arise for consideration in these appeals are:-

(i) Whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer in a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to respondent no. 1 to challenge the said order before the Collector as per Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular?

(ii) Whether the High Court is justified in directing the Nazul Officer to present personally to explain his "misconduct"?

5) Before considering the above issues, it is useful to refer certain factual details which necessitated the Nazul Officer to pass an order declining to grant NOC. The State of Madhya Pradesh as early as on 14.03.1939 executed the lease of 12 acres of land in favour of the respondent- Company for a term of 30 years from 14.03.1939 to 13.03.1969 for the purpose of developing trade in refrigerated food stuffs and industries at the ground rent of Rs. 1/- per acre per annum for the first 30 years of the lease. The Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide notification dated 14.02.1966, instructed the Nazul Officer to examine the question of ownership of the land as per rules and regulations so that the Government land could not be encroached at the time of construction of the building. This notification empowers the Nazul Officer to examine the question of ownership of the land on which the construction has to be raised. As Respondent No. 1 has violated the terms and conditions of the lease and exceeded the scope and purpose of the lease by raising constructions on the leased land without prior approval or permission of the State Government, the Additional Collector, Bhopal, on 03.05.1982, issued a show cause notice asking the respondent to explain as to why the lease not to be determined. In view of the dispute between the parties, the issue was referred to Arbitration as per clause 12 of the lease deed dated 14.03.1939 for amicable settlement. The Arbitrator, by his award dated 03.07.1985, held that there is no prohibition in the lease deed that respondent No. 1 would not raise constructions to develop industry, trade and commerce. The said award was challenged by the appellant-State in Misc. Appeal No. 166 of 1988