Dismissed

M/S Sreehri Fabricator and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC29 Apr 2022WPA/252/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking lease renewal sought writ protection against eviction threats after acquisition-related land was reassigned for their small-scale industry. Court found administration complied with interim orders and must consider renewal applications reasonably to prevent arbitrary dispossession before lease expiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of; Administration directed to consider renewal application reasonably and not disturb possession pending legal proceedings.

M/S Sreehri Fabricator and Anr. Vs Union of India and… — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

¶2

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE

¶4

WPA No. 252 of 2021

¶5

M/S SREEHARI FABRICATOR AND ANOTHER

¶6

... PETITIONERS

¶7

Versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS

¶9

For the petitioner	: Mr. Abir Lal Chakravorti, Advocate (through virtual mode)
For the respondent Nos.4 to 9	:Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate
Heard on	: 27.04.2022
Judgment on	: 29.04.2022

¶10

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

¶11

This application under Article 226 of The Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the Union of India and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, represented by the respondent nos. 1 to 9.

¶12

Mr. Abir Lal Chakravorti, learned advocate appeared for the petitioners through virtual mode. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, and Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, learned advocates have appeared on behalf of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration. Union of India is unrepresented.

¶13

¶14

In gist, the facts leading to filing of this application is that the petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in business. The petitioner no. 2 is a sole proprietor of petitioner No.1. Initially the petitioners were running a business/factory from School Line, Port Blair and the petitioner was issued permanent registration certificate by the Small Scale Industries, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Due to extension of runway of Port Blair Airport, the Government of India by Notification/Office Memorandum dated 8.12.1994 decided that all persons affected for extension of the runway will be suitably compensated and rehabilitated as per rehabilitation scheme and families owning shops and commercial sites shall have the option for allotment of alternate commercial sites along with suitable monetary compensation.

¶15

Petitioner’s business site at Port Blair was acquired by respondent authorities for extension of the runway of Port Blair Airport vide Land Acquisition Case No.5-1/LA/ADM/95. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded for the said acquisition, petitioners challenged the said award. Subsequently the respondent authorities as per the recommendation made by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi allotted the petitioner No.1 with a Industrial Plot bearing No. 8 & 9 (D-8 & D-9), measuring an area of 440 Sq.Mtrs at Industrial Estate, Garacharama for setting up of a

¶16

¶17

Fabrication Unit and for commercial use. Possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner and the Director of Industries, Andaman & Nicobar Administration executed an agreement of lease in favour of the petitioner on 11.08.1994, initially for a period of 15 years in respect of the industrial plots.

¶18

Petitioners further stated that they have been running a business peacefully on the allotted land but suddenly on 10.07.2014, a notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner for clearing out the outstanding dues and for furnishing relevant documents for renewal of lease. Subsequently another show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 27.03.2015 on the same ground which was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 27.05.2015 and 11.07.2015, assuring to comply all requirements for renewal of lease and payment of the dues. On 24.06.2016 fresh notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner on the same ground and a reply to that notice was given on 11.07.2016.

¶19

On 17.06.2019 the petitioner by his letter addressed to the Directorate of Industries requested for renewal of Lease Agreement, but the said letter was not responded to. On 31.12.2020 a fresh notice was served upon the petitioner claiming that there has been breach of terms by the petitioner and the premises was lying sealed/locked and thus nonoperational. All of a sudden on 14.07.2021 a notice was served

¶20

¶21

upon the petitioner for vacating the plot no. D-8 and D-9 at Industrial Estate Bhathu Basti, Port Blair and remove all materials within three days from the receipt of notice.

¶22

After showing sufficient cause vide letter dated 19.07.2021 and 27.07.2021 accompanied by all necessary documents for renewal of the Lease Agreement in favour of petitioners, the respondent authority has denied and disputed their contents. The Directorate of Industries, Port Blair refuted the clarification and cause shown by the petitioner through letter dated 19.07.2021 and 27.07.2021 and maintained its order for vacating and handing over the allotted plot to Andaman and Nicobar Administration within three days from the receipt of the said notice.

¶23

The petitioner no. 2 is possessing the premises for the last twenty years on the basis of rehabilitation scheme of the Government and will be left with nothing if he is dispossessed from the plot where he is continuing his business for livelihood. It is the case of the petitioner that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration has sealed his industrial premises on 4.10.2021. In the writ application the petitioners prayed for issuing a writ in the nature Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the seal from the industrial premises of the petitioner at D-8 and D-9 Industrial Estate Bhathubasti, Port Blair and allow the business and industries of the petitioner to function from the

¶24

¶25

said plot. The petitioners also prayed for issuance of Writ Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to renew the Lease Agreement of the petitioner dated 11.08.1994 setting aside notice dated 09.05.2019 and to allow him to run his industrial and manufacturing business from the said plot.

¶26

By an interim order date 8.10.2021 a mandatory injunction was passed directing the respondent authorities to remove the seal of the factory establishment of the petitioners and hand over possession of the same to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of communication of the order so that the petitioners are protected from arbitrary and forcible eviction.

¶27

Mr. Chakravorti, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that plot of lands were allotted to the petitioner in the year 1994 for a period of fifteen years on lease, but the object of such lease was for rehabilitation of the petitioners whose land was acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of extension of the Port Blair Airport. It is submitted that representations have been made before the concerned authority for renewal of the Lease Agreement on payment of appropriate revenue, but the same has not been considered in arbitrary manner and there is apprehension that the respondent will dispossess the petitioners forcibly on the basis of their notice for eviction.

¶28

¶29

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 4 to 9 submitted that settlement of plot of land was made in favour of the petitioner as lease for a period of fifteen years and the respondents have the right to take possession of lease hold land after expiry of lease period. It is further submitted that in view of the interim order the petitioners have been protected from being forcibly dispossessed from their unit and nothing survives for the decision in the writ petition as the authorities have already remove the seal and made over the possession to the petitioners.

¶30

It is further submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any remedy as the matter relates to termination of lease due to efflux of time and the respondent authorities are entitled to take action in accordance of law. If the petitioner is aggrieved thereafter they can approach the Civil Court or the authority under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971.

¶31

Having considered the submission made by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondents, this court is of the view that Andaman and Nicobar Administration has complied the interim order and it shall act reasonably in accordance with law by considering the application for renewal of the lease, so that the petitioner is not faced with any arbitrary

¶32

¶33

action on the part of the authority. The administration of Andaman and Nicobar shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the property involved in the dispute. Until the Administration concludes the proceeding in accordance with law, the possession of the petitioners in the lease hold property shall not be disturbed.

¶34

The writ application is disposed of in the light of the above directions.

¶35

Parties are to act on the server copies of the order.

¶36

(ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)

M/S Sreehri Fabricator and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sreehri Fabricator and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaya Chandran Vs P. Renu

The Collector Land Acquisition (Adm) Vs M/S Andaman Timber Industries Ltd.

Aparana Roy Vs Saikat Roy

V. Rajan Vs the State

Swapan Kumar Dutta Vs the State

Meera Vs Harbans Singh