The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the dismissal of his appeal against the cancellation of his land lease. The court held that the petitioner failed to justify a 4.5-year delay in preferring the appeal and that there was a blatant violation of lease terms regarding production commencement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3344 of 2012
Akshay Kumar Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : None For the BIADA : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nalini Jha, G.P. III ---
Order No. 06 Dated 19th August, 2019
None appears for the petitioner. However, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 is present.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the Secretary, Department of Industries (respondent No. 2) by which the Appeal No. 6/2012 has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 4 ½ years.
The factual aspect of the case reveals that the petitioner was allotted 0.20 acres of land in Kandra Industrial Area, Dhanbad for setting up of pasteurised milk, ghee and milk products only. Keeping in view of the extension plan of the petitioner he was further allotted 0.50 acre of land in the said industrial area vide letter No. 1543 dated 25.10.2005. On 15.02.2006 physical possession of the land was given to the petitioner. In the year December, 2011 the petitioner came to know that his lease has been cancelled and he has filed an application for renewal of his lease on 03.12.2011. The petitioner claims that the respondents never served him with a copy of the cancellation order as such he had preferred the appeal before the appellate authority being Appeal No. 06 of 2012. Vide order dated 25.04.2012 the respondent No. 2 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
It is the consistent claim of the petitioner that the copy of the cancellation order was never served upon the petitioner and therefore as soon as the petitioner came to know about the order of cancellation of the lease, he preferred the appeal thereby causing delay of about 4 ½ years which according
to petitioner suitably explains the delay. It has also been claimed by the petitioner that the learned appellate authority had not properly considered the grievance of the petitioner.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 on the other hand has stated that in terms of the separate agreement which was entered into between the petitioner and the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) it was agreed upon that the industrial unit must come into existence and start production within 6 months from the date of handing over the possession of the land in question to the petitioner. It has been stated that the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner on 15.02.2006, but as the production was never started, the authorities of BIADA had issued several notices to the petitioner’s unit. Thereafter finally the authorities of BIADA had cancelled the lease on 05.12.2008 on account of not commencing the production as well as on account of not clearing the dues of BIADA.
It appears from the counter affidavit that with respect to noncompliance of the terms and conditions as well as non-commencement of the production several show cause notices were issued to the petitioner’s unit. The committee of BIADA had passed an order dated 05.12.2008 by which allotment with respect to 0.25 acres of land was cancelled on the ground that the dues of the authorities of BIADA was not paid by the petitioner and construction of the unit as also the production did not start even after a considerable length of time. As per the terms and conditions of the lease, the industrial unit is to come into existence and start production within 6 months from the date of giving possession of the land in question. It appears that the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner on 15.02.2006. It further appears that a decision had been taken by the committee of BIADA in its meeting dated 20.09.2008, cancelling the allotment of land to the petitioner on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease as aforesaid. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of cancellation of lease with respect to 0.25 acres of land after 4 ½ years, but appropriate reasons having not been mentioned by the petitioner for such delay of 4 ½ years in preferring the appeal, the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.04.2012, which led the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
3.
Appropriate reasons have not been mentioned by the petitioner with respect to delay of 4 ½ years in preferring the appeal although in the writ petition it was stated that the petitioner was never informed with respect to cancellation of lease with respect to 0.25 acres of land. Even otherwise there seems to be blatant violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement as according to the said agreement the industrial unit is to come into existence and start production within 6 months from the date of giving possession of the land in question, but the production did not start even after lapse of considerable length of time, which led to the cancellation of the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner by respondent BIADA.
On cumulative consideration of the background facts of the case as well as the impugned order dated 25.04.2012, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court. This writ petition sans merit is therefore dismissed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
MK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in a dismissal of an appeal on grounds of delay of 4.5 years without adequate explanation from the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner has demonstrated a case for interfering with the cancellation of land lease due to violation of terms and conditions.
Whether the writ petition was meritorious despite the petitioner's claim of non-service of cancellation order.
Akshay Kumar Singh
State of Jharkhand
The Secretary, Department of Industries
Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) through its Managing Director
The Secretary, Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) & others
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
