Allahabad High Court
U.P.State Industrial Development ... vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta And Others on 24 April, 2013
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 724 of 2005 Appellant :- U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Respondent :- Mahesh Chandra Gupta And Others Appellant Counsel :- Sharad Sharma,S.K.Mishra Respondent Counsel :- Vipul Kumar,Vinod Sinha Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. The appeal has been restored to original number vide order of date passed on restoration application, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 since both the parties are represented.
2. Heard Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mahesh Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, Advocate for the respondents.
3. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The plaintiff instituted original suit no.79 of 1984 seeking declaration that order dated 11.11.1983 of defendants-appellant is illegal and that plaintiff be given possession over plot no.C-67 as he was illegally dispossessed and a mandatory injunction be also issued directing defendants not to interfere in possession of plaintiff over plot in dispute after handing over its possession to the plaintiff.
4. The facts, in brief, are that plot no.C-67, Industrial Area, Sikandara was allotted to plaintiff vide letter dated 14.10.1981 by defendants- appellants for which an agreement was executed on 27.2.1982. The plaintiff was required to pay certain amount in instalments. He was also supposed to raise construction over plot in dispute in furtherance of commencement of commercial establishment for the purpose whereof the aforesaid plot was allotted. The possession was handed over to the plaintiff on 15.4.1982. As per the allotment letter dated 14.10.1981, plaintiff was supposed to commence construction within 9 months and to complete the same within 18 months. The plaintiff committed default in payment of instalment and also did not raise any construction hence allotment was cancelled by letter dated 11.11.1983.
5. The plaintiff contended that he was not given possession in time and his plan submitted for construction was not cleared and therefore defendants on one hand failed themselves from observing due formalities and on the other hand have tried to take advantage of their own wrong, acted illegally in cancelling allotment and re-entering disputed property even before its cancellation, which was wholly without authority of law.
6. The suit has been decreed by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.1989 and judgment has been confirmed by lower Appellate Court also by dismissing defendants-appellants' appeal no.121 of 1990 vide judgment dated 22.2.2000.
7. Before this Court, Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants sought to argue that there was no lease deed executed between the parties and document, which was executed on 27.2.1982 was nothing but a 'license agreement' and 'license' could have been cancelled at any point of time and there is a manifest error in the impugned judgments. He, however, despite repeated query, could not specify as to how agreement dated 27.2.1982 could be read as an agreement containing terms and conditions of alleged license. The mere terminology used by authorities cannot govern a document if in effect and substance, nature of document is different.
8. In the present case, long term lease was extended in favour of plaintiff on a consideration and therefore, it was clearly a document containing terms and conditions of a lease relating to an immoveable property. Besides above, with respect to question as to whether plaintiff or defendants was at fault, I find that both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact holding defendants at fault and their action has been found patently illegal. In absence of any perversity or irregularities in the findings, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments particularly when counsel for the appellant could not show that Courts below have considered any inadmissible evidence or have ignored any relevant and admissible evidence in recording the concurrent findings against appellants. In absence of any illegality, I do not find that any substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal.
9. However, before parting, this Court finds its duty to observe that facts of this case show that mostly we find that authorities of statutory corporations or companies or bodies, which are instrumentalities of State, and therefore, constitute 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, in the matter of immoveable property, act in such an illegal and irresponsible manner so as to render the purpose for which these bodies are constituted, futile, and besides, cause serious loss and prejudice to the public at large. It also causes an irreparable and drastic adverse consequences on public interest in the development of State. U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSIDC") is a body constituted with an objective to plan and manage industrial development in the State. Huge agricultural and other land is acquired by State so as to constitute "industrial areas" putting under UPSIDC, for its planned development and otherwise management etc. Failing to take timely action in the matter of allotment, execution of documents, handing over of possession and ensuring implementation of projects for the purpose, land is allotted to an entrepreneur, authorities of UPSIDC virtually have frustrated the very purpose and objective with which this body was constituted. The problem got magnified and enlarged due to unabated, unchecked attitude of red-tapism and lack of accountability on the part of the concerned officials. No mechanism appears to have been provided by State to check and cross check, whether bodies like UPSIDC are discharging their duties and obligation in an impartial and honest manner or not. Time and again Courts have come across of blatant arbitrary action of officials and authorities of UPSIDC but we do not find any real and effective punitive and detriment measure, taken by ultimate controlling body i.e. State Government, whose stakes are actually involved in the entire process. In fact, actual stakes are that of public at large but State, being custodian of public interest and welfare, has ultimate authority to take action in such matters but unfortunately it has turned a complete blind eye to such activities and find neither time nor will nor desire to ensure observance and compliance of duties and obligations, entrusted to such bodies, in an effective, fair, reasonable and bona fide manner. This is really unfortunate and shows a collective failure on the part of not only bodies like UPSIDC but also ultimately the State Government, and amounts to a serious breach of trust vis a vis public at large.
10. The valuable agricultural land is taken in the name of Industrial development but thereafter the land itself become an industry and profitable venture between authorities and so called entrepreneur. Both eat away the poor agriculturists/farmer's land, taken away in the name of State's Police power, but thereafter it becomes a source of undue profiteering, legal and illegal, among the officials as also private so called entrepreneur. In the result, the poor gets poorer and people in power, as also alleged entrepreneur, already resourceful and rich, get more resourceful and richer. These activities, ex facie, are anti-human rights, and also unconstitutional, but none, either has time to look into it or deliberately is turning blind eye. The State has miserably failed in taking stern preventive, corrective and prohibitive measures to set the things at right. The people of this country and in particular State of U.P., cannot boast of getting rid of system of loot started with the foreign invaders, a thousand and more years back, which reached its height during British regime when we got freedom in 1947 for the simple reason that now the same loot, in different ways, is still continuing and syphoning of real public wealth from the hands of common men and is getting concentrated in the hands of a few, who maintain a pictural and deceptive transparency to an amount which is a tip of iceberg, but the real substantive amount is undercover. Very conveniently, this under-covered money and has been given publicly a title "black money". Every body is keenly working to maintain secrecy of this "black money" as a top confidential so as to keep the interest of everybody involved, safe and protected, and outside the public purview. Very occasionally there is some attempt by the Courts but when the entire concerned administering wing i.e. the executive and political executive, is working hand in glove, with a different intention, it is extremely difficult, and almost impossible, for the Courts to find out any effective method tackling with the above situation. Only public awareness and public action and reaction can be an answer to this situation.
11. Though the situation is very grim, pathetic and disappointing but still this Court has hope and trust of better days. Though this Court in similar facts and circumstances has issued directions in a number of cases directing State Government and its authorities to investigate into the illegalities and irregularities committed, and find out, the person responsible, and also take action against them, but ground level effective action in most of the cases is wanting, may be for lack of will, intention and seriousness on the part of authority responsible for its execution or otherwise. Still I find my duty to continue with my attempt to take the things upto ultimate consequence, upholding, accountability on the part of concerned officials responsible for dealing with public wealth.
12. I, therefore, direct that copy of this judgment shall be rendered forthwith by Registrar General to Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow for information so that he may get an appropriate enquiry conducted in the matter to take action against those who are found responsible for doing illegal and arbitrary activities as discussed in the judgments of Courts below which is being now upheld by this court.
13. Since no substantial question of law has arisen in this matter, this appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, subject to the observations and directions as above.
Order Date :- 24.4.2013 KA Court No. - 34 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 724 of 2005 Appellant :- U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation & Anr.
Respondent :- Mahesh Chandra Gupta & Others Appellant Counsel :- Sharad Sharma,S.K.Mishra Respondent Counsel :- Vipul Kumar,Vinod Sinha Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants-applicants and Sri Mahesh Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, Advocate for the respondents.
2. This is an application for recall of order dated 16.04.2008 passed by Hon'ble Poonam Srivastav, J. whereby appeal was dismissed in default. Since Her Lordship was transferred, this matter has come up before this Court.
3. Reasons shown for non appearance have been explained satisfactorily. The application is allowed. Order dated 16.04.2008 is hereby recalled.
Order Date :- 24.4.2013 KA (Restoration Appln./96942/08)