Allowed

Savitri Devi v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2018CW/3453/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed four connected writ petitions challenging the cancellation of registered 99-year lease deeds by the Urban Improvement Trust. The court held that an authority executing a registered lease deed lacks jurisdiction to cancel it via executive order, requiring a civil suit instead.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notices dated 2.7.2001 and lease cancellation orders dated 8.8.2001 issued against the petitioners were quashed and set aside.

Savitri Devi Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3455/2001

Inder Sen

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3452/2001 2. S.B. Civil Writ No. 3453/2001 3. S.B. Civil Writ No. 3454/2001

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.R.Punia, Sr.Advocate with Mr.O.P.Punia. Mr.Pritam Solanki. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sunil Beniwal.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

Date of Pronouncement : 04/10/2018

¶14

These writ petitions preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve identical questions of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this single order.

¶15

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petitions are noted hereinbelow.

¶16

The petitioners were having agricultural lands, which subsequently came under the limits of the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner. Being desirous of conversion/regularization of their plots, the petitioners filed applications under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 60(4) of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 and expressed their willingness to surrender the plots and to seek regularization thereof by the UIT in terms of the State Government’s notification dated 10.7.1999.

¶17

[CW-3455/2001 & 3 Ors.]

¶18

(2 of 7)

¶19

Requisite conversion charges, lease money, compounding amount and all other admissible levies were deposited by the petitioners alongwith affidavits, indemnity bonds, surrender deeds, maps etc. Upon receiving the applications filed by the petitioners as above, the Senior Draftsman cum Town Planner, UIT, Bikaner prepared a factual report whereafter, the UIT recommended regularization of the plots in question in favour of the respective petitioners by letter dated 17.3.2001. Registered lease deeds came to be executed between the UIT Bikaner and the petitioners on 20.3.2001 and the plots in question were regularized on lease basis for a period of 99 years on the very same day i.e. 20.3.2001. Thereafter, in some of the cases, even no objection certificates were issued so as to entitle the respective leaseholder to take loan from the banks by mortgaging the plots. However, the petitioners claim that to their utter shock and surprise, they received show cause notices dated 2.7.2001 issued by the UIT calling upon them to show cause as to why the lease deeds executed in their favour may not be nullified and as to why the amounts deposited by them towards regularization should not be forefeited on the ground that the regularization was managed by playing fraud. Each of the petitioners filed detailed replies on 7.8.2001 countering the allegation levelled in the show cause notices that the lease deeds had been acquired by misrepresentation etc. However, the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner issued separate orders dated 8.8.2001 cancelling the registered lease deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and directed forfeiture of the amounts deposited by them for procuring the lease deeds in question. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2001 passed by

¶20

[CW-3455/2001 & 3 Ors.]

¶21

(3 of 7)

¶22

the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner in each case, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel Shri G.R.Punia assisted by Shri O.P.Punia and Shri Pritam Solanki, Advocates representing the petitioners have filed applications in each of the writ petitions for taking additional documents on record. These additional documents comprise of various orders passed by the Civil Court, this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ramniwas, who was also granted lease deed for a plot in the very same sequence of events as the petitioners. The registered lease deed issued in favour of said Shri Ramniwas was cancelled by an identical order dated 7.8.2001 as in the case of the petitioners. Shri Ramniwas filed a suit for declaration which was not contested by the UIT and came to be decreed by the Civil Court by judgment dated 23.3.2003. The Civil court declared the notice dated 3.7.2001 and the lease deed cancellation order dated 7.8.2001 to be null and void. A suit for permanent injunction was also filed by Shri Ramniwas craving a direction that the UIT Bikaner be restrained from interfering in his possession on the plot in question. The said suit was contested by the UIT and decreed in favour of the plaintiff Ramniwas by judgment dated 10.5.2005. The UIT Bikaner assailed the judgment dated 10.5.2005 in appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner by judgment dated 1.12.2006. The UIT Bikaner challenged these two judgments by filing a Second Appeal No.198/2007 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.9.2007 observing that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The SLP No.14798/2008 preferred by the UIT, Bikaner against these judgments, was also rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court by

¶24

[CW-3455/2001 & 3 Ors.]

¶25

(4 of 7)

¶26

judgment dated 17.11.2008. Shri Punia and Shri Solanki relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1441, Manohar Lal Vs. District Collector, Barmer & Ors. reported in 2015(2) RRT 967, Taslimudeen & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4181/2004 decided on 21.7.2005 , and Nagar Mal Vs. Additional District Collector, Sikar & Ors. reported in 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 768 and urged that a registered lease deed cannot be nullified/cancelled by the procedure adopted by the UIT in the matters at hand. They urged that the administrative authority, who executed the registered lease deed has no authority to cancel the same and thus, the impugned orders are totally without jurisdiction. They urged that a registered lease deed can only be cancelled by taking recourse of the remedy of a civil suit before the competent Civil Court. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as a competent Civil court has affirmed an identical lease deed executed in favour of Shri Ramniwas, manifestly, a different view cannot be taken qua the petitioners. On these grounds, they vehemently craved acceptance of the writ petitions and sought quashing of the impugned orders.

¶27

Per contra, Shri Sunil Beniwal Advocate representing the respondent UIT, Bikaner vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel. He contended that the statutory remedy of challenging the impugned orders before the State Government is available in law and as the petitioners have directly filed writ petitions before this court

¶28

[CW-3455/2001 & 3 Ors.]

¶29

(5 of 7)

¶30

without availing the alternative remedy, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further contended that the petitioners made gross mis-statements of facts in the applications filed for seeking regularization of the disputed plots. These facts came to light after the lease deeds had been registered and thus, in keeping with the principles of natural justice, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and the impugned orders were passed after considering replies filed by them and by assigning cogent reasons. He thus urged that no illegality or infirmity is manifested from the impugned order dated 8.8.2001 (passed qua each petitioners) warranting interference therein while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court. Nonetheless, Shri Beniwal had no option but to agree that the judgments rendered by the Civil Court in the suit for permanent injunction filed by Shri Ramniwas a leaseholder situated at par with the petitioners, has attained finality as the same stand affirmed right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also candidly conceded that as far as the judgment dated 23.3.2003 passed by the Civil Court in the suit for declaration is concerned, the UIT Bikaner did not even contest the same.

¶31

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶32

So far as the preliminary objection of Shri Beniwal is concerned, the same is not considered tenable looking to the fact that the writ petitions were filed way-back in the year 2001 and have been admitted by this Court. Thus, the preliminary objection

¶33

[CW-3455/2001 & 3 Ors.]

¶34

(6 of 7)

¶35

raised by Shri Beniwal against maintainability of the writ petitions is overruled.

¶36

Law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this court that a registered lease deed issued by a statutory authority cannot be cancelled by such authority by exercising the executive powers and that the only remedy for cancellation of a registered lease deed is to file a suit for declaration in the competent Civil Court. In view of the settled legal position which has been propounded by this Court in the judgments of Anukampa Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. and Manohar Lal Vs. District Collector, Barmer (Division Bench), there is no escape from the conclusion that the questioned registered lease deeds held by the petitioners could not have been cancelled by the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner while exercising powers under the UIT Act/Land Revenue Act and that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for the UIT, Bikaner would have been to seek cancellation of the lease deeds by approaching the Civil Court concerned. Having failed to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction, the UIT cannot be permitted to defend the impugned order by claiming that the lease deeds were procured by misrepresentation, fraud etc. If at all, for a moment and for arguments’ sake, this aspersion is to be believed, then the UIT would have to satisfy the court regarding the disciplinary action if any taken against the erring officials who were involved in the issuance of the lease deeds. Manifestly, there is absolute lack of material on record to this effect. As stated above, a competent Civil Court has quashed and set aside the identical show cause notice and the lease cancellation order in the case of Shri Ramniwas (supra). Thus, no different view can be taken qua the petitioners as well.

¶37

[CW-3455/2001 & 3 Ors.]

¶38

(7 of 7)

¶39

In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The show cause notices dated 2.7.2001 and the lease cancellation orders dated 8.8.2001 issued qua each of the petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶40

Stay applications are disposed of.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶43

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶44

/tarun goyal/

Savitri Devi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh Vs State and Ors.

Prema Ram Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Rupi Devi Bheel and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Shanti Lal Vs District Judge Pratapgarh and Ors.

Sheopat Ram Vs State and Ors.

Prabhu Ram Vs State and Ors.