Kundla Press & Oil Mill vs State of Gujarat

Mr. Mohinder Pal, J. (Oral)—By way of this petition, petitioner seeks direction from this Court to respondent No. 3 to renew the lease agreement which was entered with the petitioner and was extended from time to time since 1922.

Brief facts of this case are that land ad-measuring 28,176 Sq.Mtrs. falling within Gamtal of Savarkundla was given to the petitioner-Company on lease for a period of 30 years in the year 1922. This grant of lease seems to have been extended till 31st March, 1982 by respondent No. 2. During this extension period, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to seeking permission for putting up construction on the leased land. The dispute was referred to Arbitrator who passed award on 23.3.1978. The award became decreed on 26th April, 1978 in terms of the decree made by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 48 of 1978. It is further case of the petitioner that vide order dated 23.10.1991, the lease period was further extended for a period of 30 years with effect from 1.4.1982. As the lease period was going to expire on 31st March, 2012, the respondent No. 3-Savarkundla Municipality passed resolution on 23.3.2012 vide which it was decided that the lease be discontinued. Against this resolution, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised threefold arguments. It has been submitted that as the lease was before independence, it was understanding between the parties that it was for a longer period and the lease was required to be renewed from time to time. He has referred to the resolution passed by the State Government in the year 2003 which is available at Annexure-K at page No. 63 of the petition. While referring to this resolution, it has been contended that there are certain norms in this resolution and as per these norms, lease was required to be extended. Finally, it has been argued that on 11.4.2016 respondent No. 3 has issued a letter according to which the petitioner has been asked to pay lease @ of Rs. 811/- per annum till 31st March, 2017. As respondent No. 3 has agreed to accept the lease @ Rs. 811/- p.a. till 2017, the impugned resolution asking for discotinuation of lease was liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of respondent No. 3 - Municipality, it has been submitted that vide resolution dated 23.3.2012, the Municipal Committee decided not to extend the lease beyond the period of 31st March, 2012 but the petitioner is continuing because of orders of this Court. It has been submitted that respondent No. 3 - Municipality was within their rights to decline further extension of the lease rather there was no right with the petitioner to have prayed for continuation of the lease. It is further argued that the terms of the lease have been violated as unauthorized construction has been raised on the leased land which was meant altogether for different purposes. Finally, it has been prayed that present petition was liable to be dismissed.

This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is not in dispute that originally the land in question ad-measuring 28176 Sq.Mtrs. has been given on lease for a period of 30 years which has expired long back. There was no clause for extension of the lease. However, for one reason or the other, the lease has been extended. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasise on the resolution alleged to have been passed in the year 2003. Perusal of this resolution shows that it was meant for Government waste land. No doubt originally the land in question was also a Government waste land but later on, it has become part of the Municipality within the municipal limits and no more remains waste land. The raising of construction i.e. in the form of shop and other commercial activities suggests that the land is no more waste land. So, the resolution of the year 2003 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner will not be of any help to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also referred to letter issued by respondent No. 3 dated 11.4.2016 ; wherein, lease amount has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 811/- per annum till 31.3.2017. Merely fixing of lease amount till 2017 does not grant extension of the lease. These are mesne profit which the respondent No. 3 will be entitled during pendency of the proceedings. Once the lease period is over in the year 2012, the occupation of the petitioner on this land is totally unauthorized. Perusal of the resolution passed by the Municipality shows that it has been decided to use this land for the purpose of education which seems to be a valid cause. The petitioner seems to have been using this land for commercial purposes and getting huge rent/income out of it. Once it is established that the Government is trying to use the land for a particular purpose, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue with illegal possession of the same. Otherwise also, being resident of a welfare State, every citizen has equal rights. Enjoying fruits at the cost of others cannot be permitted.

Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Though petition should have been dismissed with heavy cost but keeping in view the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for leniency, cost is not being awarded. The lease period was over in the year 2012 but the land could not be got vacated sine stay was operating against the respondent No. 3. Now, since this petition has been dismissed, the petitioner will handover the vacant possession of the leased land to respondent No. 3 within a period of two months. Rule is discharged.