Allowed

M/s Maa Danteshwari Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Nov 2024WPC/13/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A company challenged the partial cancellation of its industrial plot lease (2.13 acres reduced to 1.06 acres). The State could not produce the alleged pre-cancellation notice despite a court direction. Holding the cancellation contrary to Clause 28 and natural justice, the Court quashed the impugned orders, permitting fresh action per Clause 28.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of orders dated 09/11/2015 and 18/02/2009 cancelling lease of 1.06 acres; respondents at liberty to take fresh action per Clause 28.

M/s Maa Danteshwari Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

WPC No. 13 of 2016

2024:CGHC:44603

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 13 of 2016

¶7

M/s Maa Danteshwari Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area, Kondagaon, A Private Limited Company Incorporated Under The Comapnies Act 1956 Through Its Director Anurag Tripathi S/o Shri J.P. Trpathi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o D.N.K. Colony, Kondagaon, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Industrial Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Commissioner of Industries, Infrastructure Development Room L.I.C. Building Compound, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Incharge General Manager, District Commerce And Industry Centre, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattsigarh

... Respondents

WPC No. 13 of 2016

For Petitioner : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J Order on Board

¶18

14/11/2024

¶19

By this present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the impugned order dated 09/11/2015 (Annexure P-16) by which, the respondent No.1 has upheld the order dated 18/02/2019 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Respondent No.2, by which, it was directed that the petitioner to surrender the half of 2.13 acres allotted area i.e. 1.06 acre of land to the respondent No.3 by cancelling half of the lease of the land/property and reducing the area of the plot from 2.13 acres to 1.06 acres.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, it would be relevant to mention few important dates & events, relating to the subject matter, for adjudication:-

¶21

24/01/2005

¶22

The respondent No.3 issued a letter of intent to the petitioner/company on 24/01/2005, in adherence to the

¶23

¶24

WPC No. 13 of 2016

¶25

policy of the State Government for the development of herbal industries in the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶26

25/01/2005

¶27

The allotment order was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner entered into lease deed with the respondents. 29/07/2007

¶28

The petitioner established the machines and other necessary equipments at the said allotted plot and on 29/10/2007, the concerned Officer of the respondents authorities made joint inspection of the said plot where the industry was established. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the breach of certain conditions of the lease.

¶29

22/11/2008

¶30

The order was passed by the respondent authorities cancelling the lease deed dated 25/01/2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2.

¶31

18/02/2009

¶32

Considering the merits of the appeal, the respondent No.2 partly allowed the said appeal cancelling the order dated 22/08/2008 passed by the respondent No.3 thereby allotting half of the total area of the plot which was allotted in the

¶33

¶34

WPC No. 13 of 2016

¶35

lease deed (i.e. plot ad measuring 2.13 acres leading to area ad-measuring 1.06 acres) to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the partly allowed appeal, cancelling the lease to the extent of half of the area, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.1.

¶36

09/11/2015

¶37

The respondent No.1 rejected the representation/under consideration appeal of the petitioner.

¶38

Being aggrieved by the partly allowed appeal order dated 18/02/2009, cancelling the lease to the extend of half of the area i.e. 1.06 acres (total area granted as per lease deed was 2.13 acres to the petitioner), the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.1 and the same has been rejected by the respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 09/11/2015.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the order of respondent No.1 regarding the cancellation of lease towards the 1.06 acres of the land is concerned, the said cancellation is bad in law which has not been appreciated by the respondent No.1 because the Clause 28 of the lease deed has not been followed and without giving any notice to petitioner/lessee, the impugned cancellation of lease of the

¶40

¶41

WPC No. 13 of 2016

¶42

land has been passed. It is further submitted that vide order dated 13/09/2024, this Court has directed the respondent/State to produce the notice dated 30/05/2008, which was alleged to be issued by the respondent to the petitioner but the said alleged notice dated 30/05/2008 was never placed on record by the respondent, even in its reply. In absence of the said production of alleged notice dated 30/05/2008, the cancellation of lease is not just and proper and the same is against the condition of the lease deed as well as the principles of natural justice.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that they have taken stand that on 30/05/2008, a notice was served upon the petitioner before the cancellation of the lease and as the notice was issued to the petitioner, the condition prescribed under the Clause 28 of the lease deed is presumed to be considered as complied with and hence, the cancellation of lease for the 1.06 acres cannot be assailed on this ground only.

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶45

The Clause 28 of the lease deed Annexure P-4 dated 25/01/2005 provides as under:-

¶46

¶47

WPC No. 13 of 2016

¶48

“Consequent upon the infringement/breach of any of clauses of lease deed by lessee the allotting authority may/will serve a notice to lessee for observation/compliance of clauses of lease deed [i.e. rectification of breach] within 60 days and in case of non-compliance of this notice the lessee deed may be deemed terminated”

¶49

Though the respondent had taken a stand that on 30/05/2008, notice was issued to the petitioner before the cancellation of lease, but they failed to produce the same in writing or even after the direction issued by this Court on 13/09/2024, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/State produced a letter dated 26/09/2024 stating therein that the documents/records regarding the lease with the petitioner has been misplaced from the Office of the District Trade & Industries Center and they are not in a position to produce the notice dated 30/05/2008. In absence of such notice dated 30/05/2008, which has alleged to have been served upon the petitioner, the cancellation of lease as far as 1.06 acres of the land to the petitioner is not just and proper which is contrary to the Clause 28 of the lease deed

¶50

¶51

WPC No. 13 of 2016

¶52

as well as the principles of natural justice, hence, the cancellation of lease as far as 1.06 acres vide order dated 09/11/2015 (Annexure P-16) and 18/02/2009 (Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed and the respondents may take fresh action, if so desires, by following the procedure mentioned in the Clause 28 of the lease deed dated 25/01/2005.

¶53

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶54

SD/(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶55

Amardeep

M/s Maa Danteshwari Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Maa Danteshwari Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Brij Mohan Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Brij Mohan Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Brij Mohan Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Kumar Agrawal Vs Board Of Revenue

M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh