Skip to content


Tazi Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Commercial;Property

Court

Allahabad High Court

Decided On

Case Number

C.M.W.P. No. 47145 of 2003

Judge

Reported in

2005(1)AWC273

Acts

Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Appellant

Tazi Ram

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Appellant Advocate

Awadhesh Prasad, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Deepak Jaiswal, Adv., ;V.K. Singh, S.C. and ;C.S.C.

Cases Referred

Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana

Excerpt:


.....appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 5 as well as petitioner to offer their bids for the lease of pond in question for fisheries purposes in open court. one would require multilayered blindfold to reject the appeal of the appellant on any tenuous ground so that the respondent may enjoy and aggrandize his unjust enrichment......to offer their bids for the lease of pond in question for fisheries purposes in open court. this unusual practice was adopted in view of the fact that the pond in question having an area of 10 bigha, 11 biswa had been given to respondent no. 5 on extremely insignificant premium of its. 1,200 per year for ten years through lease deed dated 20.7.2000. the court proposed to adopt that procedure following the similar procedure adopted by supreme court in ram and shyam co. v. state of haryana, air 1985 sc 1147. in the aforesaid authority of the supreme court highest bid of appellant of rs. 3.87 lacs per year for three years lease was not approved by the government. however, later on on the letter of respondent no. 4 addressed to the chief minister the lease (under haryana minor mineral act) for rs. 4.5 lacs per year was granted to respondent no. 4. respondent no. 4 had stated in his letter that he was prevented from participating in the auction. the supreme court auctioned the lease hold rights in court in between appellant and respondent no. 4. appellant ultimately raised the bid to rs. 25 lacs and appeal was allowed. order granting quarry lease to respondent no. 4 was set.....

Judgment:


S.U. Khan, J.

1. Through this writ petition petitioner has challenged order of Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut dated 26.8.2003 through which Revision No. 49 of 2001-2002 filed by respondent No. 5 has been allowed and order dated 21.6.2002 passed by A. D. M. Ghaziabad in Case No. 1 of 1999-2000 has been set aside. The A. D. M. by his order dated 21.6.2002 had cancelled patta of a pond granted in favour of respondent No. 5 dated 20.7.2000.

2. By my orders dated 13.9.2004 and 15.9.2004 I directed the learned counsel for both the parties, i.e., respondents No. 5 as well as petitioner to offer their bids for the lease of pond in question for fisheries purposes in open court. This unusual practice was adopted in view of the fact that the pond in question having an area of 10 bigha, 11 biswa had been given to respondent No. 5 on extremely insignificant premium of Its. 1,200 per year for ten years through lease deed dated 20.7.2000. The Court proposed to adopt that procedure following the similar procedure adopted by Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147. In the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court highest bid of appellant of Rs. 3.87 lacs per year for three years lease was not approved by the Government. However, later on on the letter of respondent No. 4 addressed to the Chief Minister the lease (under Haryana Minor Mineral Act) for Rs. 4.5 lacs per year was granted to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had stated in his letter that he was prevented from participating in the auction. The Supreme Court auctioned the lease hold rights in Court in between appellant and respondent No. 4. Appellant ultimately raised the bid to Rs. 25 lacs and appeal was allowed. Order granting quarry lease to respondent No. 4 was set aside and State of Haryana and Director of Industries were directed to grant right to the appellant in the form of contract at the rate of Rs. 25 lacs per year for a period of five years. During auction in Court what happened has been mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. Concluding portion of paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 of the aforesaid authority are quoted below :

'Para 5...........what transpired may be tabulated in a chart:

Appellant's offer Respondent's offer1. 5.50 lacs 2. 6 lacs2. 6.50 lacs 4. 7 lacs5. 7.50 lacs 6. 8 lacs7. 8.50 lacs 8. 9 lacs9. 10 lacs 10.10.50 lacs Court intervened at this stage and said that the raise must be minimum at the rate of Rs. 1 lac.

11. 12 lacs 12. 14 lacs13. 15 lacs 14. 16 lacs15. 17 lacs 16. 18 lacs17. 19 lacs 18. 20 lacs19. 21 lacs 20. 22 lacs21. 25 lacs'Para 6. Shock and surprise was visible on the face of each one in the Court. Shock was induced by the fact that public property was squandered away for a song by persons in power who hold the position of trust. Surprise was how judicial intervention can serve larger public interest. One would require multilayered blindfold to reject the appeal of the appellant on any tenuous ground so that the respondent may enjoy and aggrandize his unjust enrichment. On this point we say no more.'

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 started the bid with Rs. 6,000/- per year. Learned counsel for the petitioner enhanced it to Rs. 8,000/- per year. Thereafter, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 10,000/- learned counsel for the petitioner enhanced it to Rs. 15,000 per year and thereafter learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 16,000/- per year. In response learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his Inability to enhance the bid from Rs. 16,000/-.

4. Accordingly, pond in dispute is directed to be settled with respondent No. 5 for ten years for a premium of Rs. 16,000/- per year for exercising fisheries rights. Consequently, proper fresh lease deed must be executed in favour of respondent No. 5 (for ten years with effect from 20.7.2000). However, for the last four years, i.e., from 20.7.2000 till 19.7.2004 petitioner is required to pay only Rs. 8,000/- per year and that also only for three years as since 20.10.2003 stay order in this writ petition is continuing. The net result is that from 20.7.2000 till 19.7.2004 petitioner shall be required to pay only Rs. 24,000/- after adjusting any amount which may have been paid by him at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per year. Thereafter, with effect from 20.7.2004 till 19.7.2010 petitioner shall be required to pay Rs. 16,000/-per year.

5. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //