R.P.Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India and Anr.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2025:CGHC:1973

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No.355 of 2012

¶7

1 - R.P. Sharma, S/o Late Shri Binda Prasad, aged about 59 years, R/o Jai Prakash Narayan Smarak Pratisthan Ruabandha, H.S.C.L. Colony Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Steel Authority of India, Through Secretary, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶10

2- Bhilai Steel Plant through Chief Officer Town Administrator Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG) ---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate, Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate, Mr. Palash Rajani, Mr. Pankaj Bhaskar, Advocates For respective Respondents : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nitikesh Gupta, Advocate, Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Mr. Dinesh K. Bole, Advocate,

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13.01.2025

¶15

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶16

“ 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent authorities to produce the entire

¶17

-2-

¶18

records concerning the subject issue.

¶19

10.2 That the Hob'ble Court may kindly be pleased to be quashed order dated 20/25.01.2012 Annexure P/1.

¶20

10.3 That the respondent be directed not to disposes to petitioner and no corrosive steps be taken against him.

¶21

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enquire the entire issue by and independent agency.

¶22

10.5 That the any other relief which this Hon'ble Court being fit and propped may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

10.6 Cost of the petition may also be granted.”

¶24

The facts of the present case are that a lease pertaining to the area admeasuring 4000 sq.ft. situated at HSCL Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai (C.G.) was allotted to the petitioner and a lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and Steel Authority of India, Bhilai Steel Plant on 13.02.1998. The plot was allotted in the name of ‘Pratishthan’ for specific socio-cultural purposes with specific terms and conditions. It is also stated in the agreement that violation of the stipulations in the lease agreement would lead to cancellation of the agreement. The petitioner was a Patron of Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Pratima Sthapana Samiti and a proposal was submitted by the petitioner himself for allotment of the said land. The petitioner was also permitted to install a statue of “Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan” at the junction of Sector II and Sector VI at six-tree Avenue of Bhilai Township. The petitioner got constructed office-cum-hall over the allotted land measuring 4000 sq.ft. The statue of “Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan” was installed in the year 1991. The petitioner moved an application for

¶25

3

¶26

allotment of 2670 sq.ft. of land which is adjacent to the allotted land and such an application was moved before the respondent authorities on 25.09.1993 and 23.11.1995. The petitioner constructed a boundary wall and kachha construction over that land. The show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 09.05.2011, 12.08.2011, 26.09.2011 & 18.11.2011 to remove the encroachment from the area of 2670 sq.ft. of land which was never allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to remove the encroachment from the area of 2670 sq.ft. of land. Thereafter, vide order dated 20-25/01/2012, a decision of termination of the lease was taken pursuant to clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 which states that in the event of the lessee encroaching the land of the lessor or unauthorizedly occupying any premises of the lessor adjacent to the premises allotted to the lessee or elsewhere, the lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease and call upon the lessee to handover the vacant possession of the allotted land/plot of the lessor and vacate the unauthorized occupation/encroachment within one month from the date of notice of termination of lease.

¶27

Dr. Ahuja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of 33 years. He would further submit that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 even though show cause notices were issued to the petitioner and a decision was taken to terminate the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. He would contend that the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. of land was allotted to the

¶28

-4-

¶29

petitioner for socio-cultural activities and the statue of “Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Smarak” was installed in the year 1991. He would further contend that socio-cultural activities are being held at the allotted plot. He stated that it was public property, and the petitioner opened and ran an office there. He would further state that an application was moved for allotment of the adjacent land admeasuring 2670 sq.ft. but that application was never considered by the respondent authorities and a decision was taken to terminate the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. He would also submit that there are allegations that the petitioner is using the area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land for his personal use but all the allegations are baseless. He would further argue that the said land which was never allotted to the petitioner cannot be a ground for termination of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. He would pray to quash the order dated 20-25/01/2012 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the lease agreement was cancelled.

¶30

On the other hand, Dr. Shukla, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Dr. Ahuja. He would contend that a lease was granted to the petitioner for the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. of land for socio-cultural activities. He would further contend that the petitioner encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land without any authority of law. He would also contend that moving an application for the grant of the lease cannot be treated as the grant of the lease. He would further submit that

¶31

5

¶32

the petitioner ought to have waited till his application was either rejected or allowed by the respondent authorities and thereafter, he should have taken action accordingly. He would also submit that the lease deed which was executed between the parties particularly, clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 specifically states that if the petitioner encroaches over any adjacent land, it may be one of the grounds for termination of the lease agreement. He would argue that the respondent authorities after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner took a decision to terminate the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. He would further argue that the petitioner encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land and is still using that portion for his personal use and also keeping cattle. He would further contend that the respondents have placed on record the photographs to substantiate their submissions with regard to encroachment. It is also contended that the petitioner's family about seven in number is using the said property for their personal use and the premises are not being used for socio-cultural activities. He would state that the annual return submitted by the petitioner to the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Raipur (C.G.) under Section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 for the year 1992 to 1996 are almost identical and no subsequent returns after the year 1998 were filed. Therefore, the respondent authorities rightly terminated the lease agreement and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

¶33

-6-

¶34

perused the documents placed on the record.

¶35

Admittedly, the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner on 13.02.1998 of the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. of land for socio-cultural activities. A statue of ‘Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan” was also installed near the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 reads as under:-

¶36

“ Clause-6 In the event of lessee encroaching the land of lessor or unauthorizedly occupying any premises of the lessor adjacent to the premises allotted to the lessee or elsewhere, the lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease and call upon the lessee to handover the vacant possession of the allotted land/plot of the lessor and vacate the unauthorized occupation/encroachment within one month from the date of notice of termination of lease.”

¶37

An application was moved by the petitioner before the respondent authorities for allotment of an adjacent land area measuring 2670 sq.ft. on 25.09.1993 and 23.11.1995. The application remained pending and no decision was taken by the respondent authorities. However, the petitioner erected a fencing wall and started using that part of the land without the prior permission of the respondent authorities.

¶38

A perusal of the notice issued by the respondent authorities would reveal that the petitioner used the area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land contrary to Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 and also defaulted in payment of electricity bills, etc.

¶39

The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notices and stated that the electricity bills and other dues have already been paid to the respondent authorities. It was also stated in the reply that an application

¶40

7

¶41

was moved for allotment of an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land but no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities till date. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a breach of Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. The authority concerned terminated the lease agreement vide order dated 20-25/01/2012.

¶42

A perusal of the documents and the photographs placed on record by the respondent authorities would show that the petitioner has encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land which has not been allotted to the petitioner. Vide lease agreement dated 13.02.1998, only 4000 sq.ft. of land was allotted to the petitioner for socio-cultural activities. The photographs submitted by the respondent authorities would show that the petitioner used an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land for personal use. Though the application was moved by the petitioner for the grant of lease but that application was not considered and no decision was taken and it would amount to deemed rejection of the application moved by the petitioner. Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 which deals with the breach or encroachment over the unauthorized use of adjacent land etc. or premises would lead to termination of the lease agreement by exercising power and under this clause, the respondent authorities terminated the lease agreement.

¶43

As the application moved by the petitioner remained pending for a considerable period and no decision was taken, the termination of the

¶44

-8-

¶45

lease agreement of 4000 sq.ft. of land appears to be erroneous and thus, the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 2025/01/2012 is hereby quashed.

¶46

The petitioner encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. without any authority and he has rightly been treated as an encroacher for that part of the land. The photographs show that the petitioner has encroached and the property has been used for personal use, therefore, the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises within a period of seven days from today. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to remove the encroachment if the petitioner fails to vacate the premises within a period of seven days.

¶47

The respondent authorities would also be at liberty to take appropriate steps if the petitioner violates any of the conditions of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. It is made clear that no action shall be taken against the petitioner without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶48

With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/-

¶49

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶50

Rekha

R.P.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.P.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jitendra Kumar Thakur, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nanki Bai Vs Sub Divisional Officer

Laxminarayan Sahu Vs Chetan Gayakwad

M/s Radhika Water and Amusement Park Kota Vs The State Of C.g. and Ors.

Ku. Sunita (Died), Lrs Sahodari Pando Vs the Chairman

Devichand Shrishrimal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.