Dismissed

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2017WRIC/62141/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a lease rent demand letter and seeks mandamus for full possession. The Court held that the existence of a leased contract precludes writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes and upheld the demand based on the existing lease deed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition to challenge the demand letter and seek possession of land was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 7… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62141 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohan Meakin Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himadari Batra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Srivastava,Satyam Singh,Siddhartha Varma

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Himadari Batra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'UPSIDC')

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed by petitioner challenging the demand letter dated 24.10.2015 issued by UPSIDC demanding its lease rent and interest thereon which according to the respondents was not paid by petitioner and it stands default in payment thereof. Petitioner has further sought a mandamus commanding respondents to handover possession of land to petitioner.

¶7

UPSIDC allotted 850 acres (3439950 sq. mtrs.) of land on 03.02.2003 and pursuant thereto a lease deed was executed on 30.06.2003. Possession of 830.81 acres was handover by UPSIDC to petitioner vide possession memo dated 06.08.2004, copy of possession memo is annexed as Annexure no. 24 to the writ petition. However, remaining lease rent was not paid by petitioner on the ground that Forest Department is interfering stating that some part of land is Forest Land. For recovery of outstanding dues towards lease rent etc., a demand letter was issued by UPSIDC to petitioner which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶8

Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner stated that though possession memo was executed between parties but in fact possession of entire land was not given to petitioner.

¶9

We find no force in submission of learned counsel for petitioner. Possession memo is a documentary evidence containing signatures of representatives of both parties, certifying factum of possession of lease land taken by petitioner an handed over by respondent UPSIDC.

¶10

There is no endorsement in possession memo that actual possession is short of total area of let-out land and possession of entire land was not given. Having executed aforesaid documents i.e. possession memo, petitioner subsequently cannot be allowed to retract and raise a question of fact in the teeth of possession memo that entire let-out land was not given in possession to

¶11

petitioner. When a documentary evidence is available, an oral statement, contrary to contents of documentary evidence, cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, we find no material except bare assertion of petitioner that possession of entire land was not given though memo of possession shows a fact otherwise. Therefore, mandamus sought by petitioner, seeking a direction to respondents to handover entire land to petitioner, is clearly mis-conceived and to that extent, writ petition has to be dismissed.

¶12

Then comes the second question that if there is any default on the part of petitioner in payment of lease rent and interest thereon and whether demand has rightly been made by UPSIDC. No material has been placed on record to show that entire lease rent or interest payable thereon pursuant to lease dated 30.06.2003 was paid by petitioner to UPSIDC. In fact, petitioner attempted to justify non payment of rent and interest on the ground that possession of entire let-out land was not given to petitioner, which fact we have already found incorrect. No other reason has been shown so as to dis-entitle the respondents from raising demand in question.

¶13

Be that as it may, We also find that demand of lease rent and interest etc. raised by respondents vide letter dated 24.10.2015, impugned in present writ petition, is a consequence and in furtherance of lease dated 30.06.2003. In accordance with aforesaid contract of lease, petitioner has agreed to pay certain amount to respondents but has committed default. Therefore, demand raised by respondents is founded on aforesaid contract of lease. When a dispute, arising from a simple contract, has arisen, parties must settle their dispute arising from such contractual liability by following remedy in common law. and in our view, remedy of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution is not available to them.

¶14

Petitioner's rights are founded on a contract and once contract has already come into existence, against any action in accordance with its stipulation, no writ under Article 226 of Constitution would lie so as to entitle a party to the contract for continuance or non-continuance of contractual obligation. In the similar circumstances, in Bareilly Development Authority vs. Ajai Pal Singh, AIR 19869 SC 1076, Court said as under:-

¶15

"Thus the factual position in this case clearly and unambiguously reveals that the respondents after voluntarily accepting the conditions imposed by the BDA have entered into the realm of concluded contract pure and simple with the BDA and hence the respondents can only claim the right conferred upon them by the said contract and are bound by the terms of the contract unless some statue steps in and confers some special statutory obligations on the part of the BDA in the contractual field. In the case before us, the contract between the respondents and the BDA does not contain any statutory terms and/ or conditions."

¶16

The Court also said that decision in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others AIR 1979 SC 1628 would have no application since there was no concluded contract in that case. Even if Bareilly Development Authority has trappings of a State or would be comprehended in 'other authority' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, but while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by it

¶17

and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the 'authority' or its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract acts purely in its executive capacity. The relations arising out of such contract of allotment are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by legally valid contract which determines rights and obligations of the parties inter-se. The Court however, said that if there is a dispute in terms and conditions of contract, remedy lies in common law and not by filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar view has been taken in similar other authorities also. Where a contract is not governed by statutory provisions, it is well-settled that contract can neither be enforced nor one can escape liability therein by filing a writ petition.

¶18

The petitioner, therefore, has remedy in common law regarding alleged breach of contract but such relief cannot be enforced by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶19

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.12.2017 IrfanUddin

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aruna Jain Vs State of U.P. and Others

Prem Lata Sinha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Hori Lal @ Anurudh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

State of U.P. and Others Vs Jagdish Prasad Pathak and Others

Govind Prasad Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kailashi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others