Dismissed

M/S.Hindustan Zince Ltd.Udaipur v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2014SAW/608/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal dismissed against demand for utilization charges. Court held that constructing residential colonies vacated terms of lease deed permitting only industrial or ancillary buildings. Appellant's prior admissions precluded change of stand. One month time granted for deposit.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed; one month time granted to deposit demand amount and interest.

M/S.Hindustan Zince Ltd.Udaipur Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.608/2004

¶3

M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited V/s State of Rajasthan & ors.

¶4

23.9.2014

¶5

HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶6

Mr.Rajesh Joshi for the appellant.

¶7

Mr.O.P.Boob ) Ms.Suman Porwal )-for the respondents.

¶8

This special appeal arises out of the order dated 17.8.2004 passed by learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petition against the demand raised by the Collector for Rs.27,67,517/- from the appellantpetitioner for utilising 37 bighas of land out of the total area of 3620 hectares of land leased out to it for excavation of minerals, for residential colony as well as 10 bighas of land on which unauthorized constructions were raised by the employees of the appellant-Company.

¶9

Learned Single Judge had relied on the admission made by the Chief Manager (Personnel & Administration) and Dy.General Manager (Personnel & Administration) of the appellant-petitioner-Company in their letters dated 21^st August, 1996 and 5^th May, 1998 respectively requesting the

¶10

¶11

Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Sarada District Udaipur and the Collector, Udaipur to inform it with the amount required to be paid by them for utilizing 105.02 bighas of Government land for residence, roads, school, community centre. Learned Single Judge observed that as the appellantpetitioner was prepared to pay the amount leviable for raising constructions of the community hall, residential colony or school etc., it had admitted the liability and acquiesced to the validity of demand.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that para 3 of the lease deed provides for utilization of land and it reads as follows:-

¶13

“3. Liberty and power for or in connection with any of the purposes mentioned in this part to erect, construct, maintain and use on or under the said lands by engine, machinery plant, dressing floors, furnaces, cook ovens, brick clins, workshops, storehouse, bungalows, godowns, sheds and other buildings and other works and conveniences of the like nature on or under the said lands.”

¶14

It is submitted that once the land has been leased with the condition that it can be used for constructions of storehouse, bungalows, godowns, sheds and other buildings, the demand raised by the Collector for utilization of the land on the ground that the land was not settled for allied

¶15

¶16

constructions, was not justified.

¶17

It is further submitted that the demand under section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has to be justified for the purpose and object which is mentioned in Section 256 of the Act, and since the demand was entirely illegal as the constructions were raised in terms of the lease deed, the quantification of the amount for payment will not bind the appellant-petitioner.

¶18

We do not find any merit in the arguments, inasmuch as, the appellant-petitioner could have used the land for constructions ancillary to the industry specified in para 3 of the lease deed to include other than industrial purposes, the store-house, bungalows, godowns, sheds and other buildings and other works and conveniences of the like nature on or under the said lands. The words “other buildings and other works and conveniences of the like nature” have to be read in the context of the constructions which could be raised by the Company under clause-3 of the lease deed. The purposes mentioned in the clause are industrial purposes, ancillary to mining and manufacture. The word “bungalow” and other conveniences has a meaning in the same context in which it is clubbed and used in the clause. Even otherwise the word “bungalow” defined in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary as “a house built

¶19

¶20

all on one level without stairs; (in some Asian countries) a large house, sometimes on more than one level, that is not joined to other house on either side, will not include colonies and houses for staff spread out in a large area.

¶21

In the present case, there is admission made by the Chief Manager (Personnel & Administration) and Dy.General Manager (Personnel & Administration) of the appellantpetitioner-Company in their letters dated 21.8.1996 and 5.5.1998 respectively requesting the Tehsildar and Collector to give details of the computation of the amount which is payable for utilizing the Government land for residence, roads, schools, community centre. The appellantpetitioner-Company, therefore, was fully aware that it has raised the constructions in breach of the agreement and that it was ready to pay the amount for raising such constructions.

¶22

In the circumstances as above, we do not find that the appellant-petitioner has been able to explain the admission in the letters of its senior administrative officers in respect of which the appellant-petitioner-Company had changed its stand subsequently.

¶23

The special appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner prays for one month's time to deposit the entire amount of final demand made by the Collector on 21.12.2002 alongwith

¶24

¶25

interest. As prayed, the appellant-petitioner is allowed one month's time to deposit the entire amount of demand alongwith interest as may be determined by the Collector.

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),Actg.CJ.

¶27

Parmar

M/S.Hindustan Zince Ltd.Udaipur v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hindustan Zince Ltd.Udaipur v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rita Tyagi Vs K.C. Mishra and Anr.

Sunita Bhatnagar Vs K.C. Mishra and Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Raj. High Court and Anr.

Mrs Mani Mal Jain Vs State and Ors.

Rajveer Shekhawat and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Rikheshwar Joshi Vs State of Raj.