Dismissed

Bijalben Manuji Vaghela v. Indian Oil Corporation

Gujarat HC3 Oct 2019SCA/11838/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat summarily rejected a special civil application challenging an order rejecting an LPG distributorship due to discrepancies in registered lease deeds. The Court held that the lease deed contained false facts regarding land ownership and misrepresentation, rendering it unsuitable for interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was summarily rejected; notice was discharged.

Bijalben Manuji Vaghela Vs Indian Oil Corporation — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11838 of 2019

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

BIJALBEN MANUJI VAGHELA

¶6

Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR PRABHAV A MEHTA(2009) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶12

Date : 03/10/2019

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

1.By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for
following relief(s):-

¶15

“ 22(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order/communication dated 06.04.2018, issued by respondent no.2 bearing No.RAO/RLSA-1/MORTHALA and be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant distributorship to the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.11.2018.

¶16

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, in the alternative, to permit the petitioner to give alternate lend for the purpose of show room and godown, in respect of advertise location, Morthala, District:Surendranagar within the stipulated period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶19

C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay operation and implementation of Order/Communication dated 06.04.2018 issued by respondent no.2 bearing no.RSA/RLSA-1/MORTHALA and be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant distributorship to the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.11.2018.

¶20

D. An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (C) above may kindly be granted.

¶21

E. Such other and further relief/s may be deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.”

¶22

2.The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was selected for LPG Distributorship in
the draw of lots conducted on 10.01.2019 pursuant to
the advertisement dated 13.11.2018.

¶23

2.1It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement
filled up necessary application along with necessary
documents including registered lease deeds and
registered sub lease for the purpose of godown as
well as for the purpose of shop.

¶24

2.2By the impugned communication/order dated
26.03.2019, the respondent rejected the offered land
i.e. Revenue Survey No.745 for show-room and godown
on the ground that in Village Form No.7 of Revenue
Survey No.745 which was offered for godown and
showroom and for which lease deed was submitted by
the petitioner, the name of owner in Village Form
No.7 is Mashrubhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana, whereas in
the lease deed which was submitted by the petitioner,

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶27

the names of owners were mentioned as Mr.Kumudchandra
M. Dave and Mr.Galabhai P. Damor. It was, therefore,
pointed out by the respondent that the name of land
owner of revenue Survey No.745 is not mentioned in
the lease document as a lessor.

¶28

3.Heard Mr.Prabhav Mehta, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel
with Mr.Munjal Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent
no.1.

¶29

4.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has submitted two lease deeds one
executed by the owner of the land viz. Mashrubhai
Ranchhodbhai Makwana in favour of Mr.Kumudchandra M.
Dave and Mr.Galabhai P. Damor, which was executed on
16.08.2017 and another lease-deed executed by
Mr.Kumudchandra M. Dave and Mr.Galabhai P. Damor on
11.12.2018 in favour of seven persons one of which is
Naransinh Bhavansinh Chavada, who is relative of the
petitioner and has given consent to utilize the land
situated at revenue Survey No.745 for the purpose of
godown and showroom for the LPG distributorship.

¶30

5.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that in the lease-deed dated 11.12.2018, by
typographical error, names of Mr.Kumudchandra M. Dave
and Mr.Galabhai P. Damor, who have executed lease-
deed are shown as lessor/owner of the land of Revenue
Survey Nos.424, 745, 756, 757 etc. He, therefore,
submitted that there is no mis-representation on
behalf of the petitioner and the respondent is aware

¶31

Page 3 of 7

¶32

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶33

about the fact that the petitioner has taken the sub-
lease from the aforesaid two persons, who have taken
the land in question on lease from the original
owner.

¶34

6.Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon
the decision of Apex Court in case of Mineral
Development Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Union of India & Anr.
[AIR 1960 SC 1373] and submitted that lease of
immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy
such property made for certain time, express or
implied or in perpetuity in consideration of a price
paid or promised, or of money, a share crops, service
or any other thing of value to be rendered
periodically or on specified occassions to the
transferor by the transferee who accepts the transfer
on such terms. He , therefore, submitted that what a
lease therefore requires is a transferor and
transferee and a transfer of immovable property on
the terms and condition mentioned in Section 105 of
the Transfer of Property Act. It was submitted that
the land of Revenue Survey No.745 for the purpose of
godown and showroom is validly offered as said land
is taken on lease by transfer of right to enjoy the
same on terms and conditions mentioned in lease deed.
It was further submitted that the impugned
communication/order dated 26.03.2019 issued by the
respondent is contrary to the legal position.

¶35

7.On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
Mr.M.R.Bhatt for the respondent no.1 submitted that
the name of owner of the land of revenue Survey

¶36

Page 4 of 7

¶37

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶38

No.745 is wrongly mentioned in the lease-deed
executed by Mr.Kumudchandra M. Dave and Mr.Galabhai
P. Damor. It is not stated in the lease-deed as to
how and when they became the owners of the land in
question. More over, there is no recital as to the
fact that they are lessee of the land in question and
they have sub-leased the same to the relatives of the
petitioner for the purpose of LPG distributorship.

¶39

8. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned
communication/order dated 26.03.2019 is passed as per
admitted facts of the case. It was further submitted
that the petitioner has approached this Court in
July,2019, whereas impugned order is passed in March-
2019 and as such there is a delay in preferring the
present petition. He, therefore, submitted that the
petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be
rejected.

¶40

9.Having taken into consideration the rival
submissions made by both the sides, it is an admitted
position that lease-deed was executed by
Mr.Kumudchandra M. Dave and Mr.Galabhai P. Damor on
11.12.2018 in favour of seven persons, one of which
viz. Naransinh Bhavansinh Chavada, is the relative of
the petitioner. The fact stated in lease-deed clearly
points out that the said two persons are the owners
of the land in question. It appears that when the
persons who are stated to be lessors, are found to be
not the owners of the land in question, then it
cannot be said to be a typographical error in lease-
deeddated11.12.2018.Itamountsto

¶41

Page 5 of 7

¶42

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶43

misrepresentation made by the petitioner by producing
lease-deed, wherein persons, who are not owners of
the land are stated to be owners of the land. The
said lease-deed is already registered with the office
of the Sub-Registrar, Thangadh at Serial No.1065, and
therefore, when a lease-deed containing false facts
is registered, recital made therein cannot be
considered as typographical error on the part of the
lessor of such lease-deed.

¶44

10.With regard to the decision relied upon by the
learned advocate for the petitioner rendered in the
case of Mineral Development Ltd., Calcutta (Supra),
it would not be applicable in the facts of the
present case, as it is an admitted position that the
lease-deed in question is containing false facts with
regard to the ownership which is the basis for
passing the impugned order dated 26.03.2019.

¶45

11.In the case before the Apex Court, question was
whether 'mining lease' would include mining sub lease
or not, and in that context, it was held that lease
would also include sub-lease. However, in the facts
of the present case, lease-deed submitted by the
petitioner does not disclose that it was sub-lease
deed. Lease-deed executed shows that lessors are
owners of the land in question, though in fact they
are lessee of original owner. Hence, there is prima-
facie misrepresentation in the lease deed in
question.

¶46

Page 6 of 7

¶47

C/SCA/11838/2019 ORDER

¶48

12.Therefore, in view of above facts, no
interference is called for while exercising powers
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, as the petition being devoid of any merit, the
same is summarily rejected. Notice is discharged. No
order as to costs.

¶49

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶50

GIRISH

¶51

Page 7 of 7

Bijalben Manuji Vaghela v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijalben Manuji Vaghela v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravinbhai Vrajlal Dogresia Vs State of Gujarat

C. M. Smith and Sons Ltd. Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority

Hamesh Mahendrabhai Patel Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Superintendent of Stamps

Mohanbhai Ratanbhai Desai Vs State of Gujarat

Zalak Aakashbhai Patel Vs Regional Passport Officer