Working Journalist Union, Bhopal & Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

This petition filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution takes exception to the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by learned Collector, Bhopal and also the

orders passed by the Appellate Authority/Commissioner dated 25.04.2015 and the order of Revisional Authority/Board of Revenue dated 29.06.2016.

The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner No.1 is a registered union of “Working Journalists of Bhopalâ€, which is also called

as “Madhya Pradesh Shramjivi Patrakar Sangh, Bhopal Unionâ€. Petitioner No.2 is also registered society under the provisions of Madhya

Pradesh Society Registration Act, 1973. The registration certificate of petitioner No.1-Union dated 03.12.1992 is filed as Annexure-P/3. Learned

counsel for the petitioner urged that on 11.02.1969, an area of about 27007 sq. ft. of Nazul Land in South T.T. Nagar, (74 Bungalow) out of Capital

Project Area, Bhopal was allotted to “Working Journalist Union Bhopalâ€. The said allottee got registered as a Society with the Registrar of Trade

Union, Madhya Pradesh on 30.09.1986 and Registration No.3437 was allotted to it.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that “Shramjivi Patrakar Sangh, Bhopal†is the Hindi translation of English title “Working

Journalist Union Bhopal†and there is no other body of Journalists registered with the said title and name in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the said deed dated 11.02.1969 was in fact a “grant deed†and not a “lease deed†There are two

different legal entities, namely, (i) Shramjivi Patrakar Sangh and (ii) Patrakar Bhawan Society. As per bye-laws of Patrakar Bhawan Society, its

members will also be members of Shramjivi Patrakar Sangh. In the year 1999, the Government appointed an Administrator to take care of Patrakar

Bhawan Samiti. The appointment of Administrator was called in question and ultimately by order dated 06.05.2010 passed in W.P. No.14588/2017, the

impugned orders therein dated 31.07.2001 and 22.08.2007 were set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the regime of Administrator, the Government was official taking care of affairs of

Patrakar Bhawan Samiti. The said Officer had given the Bhawan for the purpose of marriage of various parties. If lease rent was not paid during that

period, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Mistakenly, one Ms. Kriti Nigam preferred an application for renewal of lease deed dated 11.02.1969

by filing an application dated 02.06.2011 (Annexure-P/6). Shri Gupta contended that Ms. Kriti Nigam was neither authorized on behalf of anybody to

prefer such application nor she was justified in preferring said application because the original deed dated 11.02.1969 was not a lease deed given for

any particular period of time. Indeed, it was a “grant deed†for an indefinite period. Thus, the application of Ms. Nigam was not tenable and

misconceived. Therefore, no action could have been taken on the said application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially on the application of Ms. Nigam, the proceeding started before Nazul Officer from where

it travelled before the Tahasildar. On this stage, the respondent No.4 issued directions for cancellation of lease and under his dictate, the matter was

placed before the Collector, who in turn, passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2015.

To elaborate, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order sheet dated 06.06.2011 (Page 86) shows that the matter was

registered on the complaint of Ms. Nigam. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Tahasildar on 21.07.2011. Thereafter, by order dated

22.01.2013, the matter was taken up by learned Additional Collector with an observation that it will be apposite to obtain guidance from the State

Government whether the lease can be treated as permanent or it should be treated for a period of 30 years only. Shri Gupta placed reliance on the

order sheet dated 23.12.2014 wherein the letter of respondent No.4 dated 22.02.2014 was considered by the respondents. He placed heavy reliance

on document dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure-P/18) wherein one letter of Commissioner, Public Relation is annexed. He then relied on document dated

22.12.2014 to contend that the letter dated 22.12.2014 cannot be annexed with a letter written on the previous date i.e. 19. 12.2014. Shri Gupta also

relied on the reply dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure-P/19) whereby the Advocate has filed reply to notice dated 01.12.2011. On the strength of these

letters and order sheets, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings were initiated before the Nazul Officer on an application for

extension of lease filed by Ms. Kriti Nigam. The proceedings were never initiated under Section 182 of M.P. Lad Revenue Code. Thus, petitioners did

not get any opportunity to putforth their defence as per proviso to Section 182 of the Code. Petitioners were never given to clearly understand about

the nature of proceedings because at not point of time any specific notice under Section 182 was served on the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of Collector in converting the proceedings under Section 182 will amount to acting under

dictate. He acted as per the demand and directions of the respondent No.4. In absence of any independent application of mind, the entire proceedings

are liable to be interfered with.

The appellate order of Commissioner dated 25.04.2015 is called in question by contending that petitioners have preferred a detailed appeal running

in eight pages wherein they raised various points relating to illegality in the order of Collector. Alongwith appeal memo, petitioners filed various

documents including the documents showing that at the relevant point of time, the Bhawan was given on rent for marriage by the Administrator and

not by the Journalists. Learned appellate authority did not deal with the specific points raised by the petitioners. The revisional order also suffers from

similar infirmity, whereby the Board of Revenue has declined the admission of the revision filed by the petitioners.

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners criticized the order of learned Collector by contending that the only question for consideration by the

Collector was whether the conditions of lease were violated or not and whether the Union has paid lease rent as per the conditions of the lease deed

or not. He submits that the Collector has passed the impugned order for twin reasons, namely, (i) the conditions of lease deed were grossly violated

which runs contrary to the terms, conditions and object of the deed; (ii) the lease rent has not been paid for a long period. Learned counsel for the

petitioners contented that before reaching to the said two conclusions it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to examine whether the said

violation of conditions of lease were during the period when Journalists were functioning and taking care of the Bhawan or whether it was the period

when Administrator was functioning. If it is during the period when Administrator was functioning, no adverse order can be passed against the

petitioners. Same is the issue with non-payment or late payment of lease rent. If said action of non-payment of rent is during the regime of the

administrator, petitioners cannot be made to suffer.

Shri Prashant Chourasiya, learned counsel for the intervenor intended to support the petitioner. He submits that the intervenor-Patrakar Bhawan

Society was registered in the year 1970. The Collector has passed the impugned order contrary to law and hence the order of Collector may be set

aside. Â

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the original lease deed was granted on 11.02.1969 to Working

Journalist Union, Bhopal which is a registered body and is a different legal entity. Petitioner No.1 was admittedly registered on 03.12.1992. There is no

nexus between the Working Journalist Union, Bhopal and the present petitioner No.1. Lease-deed was not in favour of either petitioners or Patrakar

Bhawan Society. The petitioners have used a linguistic engineering in para 5.1 of the petition, wherein they projected petitioner No.1 as if the only

difference between Working Journalist Union, Bhopal and Sharmjivi Patrakar Sangh is the translation in the name, whereas both are two different

legal entities differently registered on different dates.

Shri Tiwari, learned Add. AG contended that admittedly the Working Journalist Union, Bhopal was registered as a Trade Union by Registration

No.3437 on 30.09.1986. the Patrakar Bhawan Samiti is a Society registered before the Registrar, Firms & Societies under M.P. Societies

Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1972. This Samiti was registered on 27.11.1998. The Government ordered for removal of governing body of Patrakar

Bhawan Samiti by invoking Section 33 of the Adhiniyam of 1972 by order dated 19.05.1999. The charge of Society was directed to be handedover to

Administrator pursuant to Government’s order dated 27.05.1999. This Court in W.P. No.2543/1999 upheld the appointment of Administrator on

13.07.1999. The registration of Patrakar Bhawan Samiti was cancelled by Registrar vide order dated 31.07.2001. The appeal of Samiti preferred

under Section 40 of Adhiniyam was dismissed by State Government on 01.11.2003. This Court in W.P. No.28614/2003, on 20.02.2006 remitted the

matter back before the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since, appeal was against

dismissed by State Government, the Samiti filed WP No.14588/2007 before this Court. By order dated 06.05.2010 the main order and appellate order

aforesaid were set aside and directions were issued to conduct a fresh election of the Samiti. By taking this Court to the order dated 06.05.2010

passed by this Court, learned Addl. AG contended that the said order has nothing to do with the grant of renewal or cancellation of the lease. The said

matter was related with the orders passed under Section 33 of the Adhiniyam and subsequent order passed by the appellate authority. This order

dated 06.05.2010 cannot throw any light regarding entitlement of the present petitioners or Samiti to enjoy the deed dated 11.02.1969.

The next contention of Shri Tiwari, learned Addl. AG is that the same members of Patrakar Bhawan Samiti made a request to the State

Government to cancel the lease which was duly discussed in a meeting called by Commissioner of Public Relations. It was resolved to cancel the

lease, demolish the building and construct a multi-story building in the interest of institution of journalism. Thereafter, by order dated 14.01.2015 the

Collector has taken cognizance of the matter, registered a case and directed for issuance of notice to the Working Journalist Union and Patrakar

Bhawan Samiti. In turn, the Sharmjivi Patrakar Sangh entered appearance and filed their objections. The Collector after hearing all the parties

including the present intervenor, passed the order dated 02.02.2015. By taking this Court to para 3 of the order of Collector, Shri Tiwari argued that

Shri Bhargawa on behalf of Samiti appeared before the Collector and categorically stated that the conditions of deed were grossly violated. The

building is being used for activities other than journalism and, therefore, property must be returned to the State Government. He criticized the argument

advanced by learned counsel for the intervenor by contending that the learned counsel has taken U-turn before this Court while contending that order

of learned Collector is bad in law.

Shri Tiwari submits that the present petitioners have no locus standi to assail the orders of Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue. There

is not iota of material to show that they have any right to enjoy the deed dated 11.02.1969. The learned Collector has rightly held that present

petitioners have no locus standi. By taking this Court to the notice, it is urged that provisions of Section 182 were complied with. A detailed order

founded upon the relevant legal provisions was passed. Reliance is placed on Section 111(f) of the TP Act by contending that surrender of land/lease

can also be a ground for passing the impugned order. Reference is made to AIR 1960 MP 282, [Ahmedali S/o Asadali Khan & others vs. State of

M.P.], wherein Krishnan, J held that the disputed questions regarding violation of conditions of lease-deed, payment of lease rent etc. cannot be gone

into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India. Shri Tiwari submits that one senior journalist, Shri L.S. Hardania, who is one of

the living member of original allottee i.e., Working Journalist Union, Bhopal preferred a representation (Annexure-AR/3) [with additional return]

wherein he requested the Government to cancel the lease deed and act in the interest of the Journalist Community. He also made a request to

construct a new building. In support of aforesaid contention, Mr. Tiwari prepared written synopsis.

Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submissions contended that the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in the light

of Sections 2 & 3 of Government Grants Act, 1895. Secondly, the lease which was cancelled was a lease granted under MPLRC, 1959 on which

provision of TP Act are not applicable.

No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

The question which goes to the root of the matter is whether present petitioner and intervenor have any right to enjoy the benefits of deed dated

11.2.1969 ? The ancilliary question is whether the petitioners have any locus standi to assail the order of Collector dated 02.05.2015 ? The admitted

facts between the parties are that the deed of 1969 was in favour of the Working Journalists Union, Bhopal which was registered as a Society with

the Registrar of Trade Union M.P. on 30.09.1986. This is also admitted fact that petitioner No.1 was registered on 03.12.1992 whereas Patrakar

Bhavan Samiti was registered on 23.11.1998. Thus, the “Working Journalists Union†in whose favour deed was issued on 11.02.1969,

“petitioner No.1†and “Patrakar Bhavan Samiti†are three different legal entities registered on different occasions by relevant statutory

authorities. The petitioners and intervenor are unable to show any right whatsoever to enjoy the benefit of deed dated 11.2.1969.

Putting it differently, the said parties were unable to show that at any point of time, they acquired any legal, vested, statutory or constitutional right

to enjoy the benefit of deed dated 11.2.1969. In absence thereof, they have no right to raise objection or assail the orders passed by the official

respondents in relation to deed dated 11.2.1969. The petitioners and intervenor have no locus standi whatsoever to raise objection before the Collector

in relation to deed dated 11.2.1969 which was never issued in their favour. Thus, I find substance in the findings given by learned Collector in para 5

and 7 of the impugned order wherein he opined that almost all members of Working Journalists Union, Bhopal, (except Shri Hardeniya), to whom deed

was granted, have expired. The learned Collector has rightly opined that the petitioner Association was registered in the year 1992 whereas Indian

Federation of Working Journalists with whom petitioner No.1 is claiming affiliation, was registered in the year 1974. These organizations have nothing

to do with the deed and Patrakar Bhavan Samiti.

In view of finding that petitioners and intervenor have no right to enjoy the deed of 11.2.1969 and they have no locus standi to challenge the order

of learned Collector, I am not inclined to enter into the remaining points raised by Shri Siddharth Gupta which are related with procedural impropriety,

perversity etc. Needless to emphasis that the said alleged defects can be examined in a petition filed by the persons who have locus to challenge the

same.

In the result, I find no reason to interfere in this petition. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.