Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hindustan Commercial Corp.Pvt.Ltd. vs The State Of M.P,And Anr. on 2 December, 2016
-( 1 )- W.P. No.4032/2005
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
(Vivek Agarwal, J.)
W.P.No.4032/2005
.....Petitioner : Hindustan Commercial Corporation Pvt.
Ltd.
Versus
.....Respondents : State of M.P. & another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.D.Gupta and Shri N.K.Gupta, learned senior advocates,
with Shri Santosh Agrawal and Shri Sunil Gupta, counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri C.R.Roman, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(2/12/2016) Petitioner Hindustan Commercial Corporation Private Ltd. has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue), Gwalior Division, Gwalior, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the competent authority under the Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (in short 'the Act of 1974'). Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the competent authority under the Act of 1974 whereby the competent authority has declared the petitioner to be unauthorized occupant on the land in question at village Gaushpura and directed the petitioner to evict the said public premises till 30th June, 2005 under intimation to the General Manager, District Industries Center, and the Court of competent authority.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner is a private limited company and it had purchased the land in question -( 2 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 from M/s. the Cotton Traders (Private) Ltd. through a registered sale-deed dated 5th January, 1959 and is in possession of the said land since 1959. It has been further submitted that the land in question was purchased by the M/s. the Cotton Traders (Private) Ltd. from M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries vide registered sale-deed dated 26 th August, 1950 and in fact the land in question was belonging to one Purshottam Das who was Khudkasht over the said land, and therefore, the land in question being not a public premises as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1974, the order of the competent authority evicting the petitioner and the order passed in appeal by the Revenue Commissioner are perverse and need to be set aside.
3. Petitioner has relied on certain Khasra entries in support of its claim which are enclosed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure P/15 and Annexure P/16 and has submitted that since the land in question is essentially an agricultural land which was transferred from the Khudkasht to the Gwalior State Trust Ltd. and from Gwalior State Trust Ltd. said land was purchased by M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries and from whom M/s. the Cotton Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. had purchased the land and in turn from M/s. the Cotton Traders (Pvt.) Ltd., the petitioner had purchased the land, therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.
4. It is the petitioner's case that the application which was filed by respondent No.1-General Manager, District Industries Center, Gwalior, before the competent authority was not maintainable and petitioner had filed objections before the competent authority in which petitioner had specifically mentioned that there is no order granting the land to the company for establishment of the factory and the land in question is an agricultural land, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1974 will not apply. Petitioner has also mentioned that respondents had filed photocopy of letter dated 11.2.1943 which has been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure P/8 and another letter dated 16.2.1943, communication made by one Sampat Kumar -( 3 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 Majeji to the Secretary, Commerce Department, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, confirming the terms and conditions laid down in letter No.5340 dated 11th February, 1943. Petitioner has also placed on record order dated 3.1.1978 passed by the Under Secretary of Government of M.P., Commerce and Industries Department, cancelling the allotment of land and lease deed executed in favour of M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries and has submitted that petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.No.61/2001 whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner on his preliminary objection and after hearing him pass appropriate orders on the same before proceeding further in the matter. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had fixed the date for production of evidence by respondent No.1 and thereafter when no evidence was filed, without fixing any date and granting opportunity of hearing, in a hurried manner preliminary objection was rejected on 6.6.2005 and the case was fixed for final argument on 10.6.2005, but without granting opportunity of hearing, the order dated 22.6.2005 was passed by the competent authority. Similarly, the appellate authority also without granting opportunity of hearing in a hurried manner decided the appeal by impugned order, Annexure P/1, therefore, both the orders are liable to be quashed mainly on the ground that the land in question was agricultural land, and therefore, authorities lack inherent jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. It is further submitted that since agricultural land is not included in the definition of "premises" as defined in sub-clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act of 1974, therefore, petitioner could not have been termed as unauthorized occupant in terms of the provisions contained in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act of 1974, therefore, in absence of any material produced by the respondent/competent authority to show that petitioner or his predecessors-in-title were allowed to occupy the land or allotted the land, no orders could have been passed against the petitioner. It was also submitted that no lease deed was filed -( 4 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 before the competent authority as was said to have been executed in favour of Sampat Kumar Majeji showing that the land in question was ever granted by the State Government, therefore, in absence of any specific grant, there was no question of cancellation of any lease and applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1974.
5. Petitioner has also submitted that even if it is proved by the respondent that the land was granted, then the petitioner has made construction over part of the land without there being any objection of any kind, therefore, in the light of permanent construction made by the petitioner, he has a right to occupy the land and no proceedings under the Adhiniyam can be initiated. Petitioner has also submitted that in the revenue papers name of Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills is mentioned, therefore, the said land could not have been taken from the petitioner as in the revenue records name of another entity has been recorded.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner, follwoing issues emerge for decision; (i) whether the order passed by the this Court in W.P.No.61/2001, whereby this Court had directed respondent No.2 to first decide the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings and after deciding the same, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, has been complied with or not and an ancillary issue is whether the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders, (ii) whether the principle of estopple shall apply merely because petitioner had raised some construction over the land in question and no objection was raised at the time of raising of such construction,
(iii) what will be the effect of Khasra entries in terms of the provisions contained in Section 117 of the MP Land Revenue Code, (iv) whether the land in question is an agricultural land which was freely traded between the Khudkasht and the predecessors of the petitioner or whether the said land was allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner on certain terms and conditions as are contained in the letter of allotment dated 11 th -( 5 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 February, 1943, Annexure P/8, and (v) whether the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1974 are applicable to the facts of the case or not.
7. Respondent No.2 has submitted that Zamindari Abolition Act came into force on 2.10.1951. In fact before coming into force of Zamindari Abolition Act, the land was no more agricultural land and it stood vested in the Gwalior State Trust Ltd. It is further submitted that the Zamindari Abolition Act nowhere saved the agricultural land or buildings, but it only saved ownership right of a Khudkasht Zamindar or his licensee. It is further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, all lands belong to State Government and petitioner has no right in the land in question.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has drawn attention to Khasra entries contained in Annexure P-16 wherein in column No.3 the land has been shown as Raiyatwari. According to him, Raiyatwari means Government land and since in column No.5 name of Gwalior State Trust Limited has been recorded, it is submitted that said land was not an agricultural land specially in view of the fact that the trust deed of Gwalior State Trust Ltd. clearly provides that the object for which the company was established was to assist in every way possible the development of industries and commerce in Gwalior State. According to the learned counsel to respondent No.2, this Gwalior trust was registered on 19.01.1917 and the deed of memorandum of association of the Gwalior State Trust Ltd. is available as Annexure P-17, therefore, it cannot be said that the land in question was agricultural land. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also submitted that since the land was allotted to Samptat Kumar Majeji vide Annexure P-8 and in terms of the condition enumerated in clause 14 of the said allotment which reads as under:-
"(14) You shall have no right to give any sub-
lease of the concessioned lease without previous sanction of the Government."
-( 6 )- W.P. No.4032/2005and the said allotment of the lease of 27 Beeghas of the land by the Secretary, commerce department of the Gwalior Government was accepted by the said Sampat Kumar Majeji vide acceptance letter dated 16.02.1973, therefore, said land is definitely a Government land, and, therefore, the provisions of M.P. Public Premises Eviction Act 1974 shall apply to the said land. It has been also submitted that petitioner has taken dual stand in his objection; on the one hand he is claiming title from Purushottam Das whose name is recorded in the Khasra entries for Mauja, Goshpura, Tehsil Gird as is contained in Annexure P-15 and on the other hand it is submitted that even if it is presumed that land was allotted to Sampat Kumar Majeji, then also petitioner cannot be evicted from the said land as he had raised construction without any objection from the respondents. In view of such conflicting stands, it is submitted that in fact the land is a Government Land and the orders passed by the respondent/competent authority and the Commissioner are fully justified under the facts and circumstances of the case and do not call for any interference. It is further submitted that possession of the said land has already been obtained from the petitioner after preparing an appropriate Panchanama as is contained in Annexure A, and, therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication. It is also submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and impugned orders have been passed after granting proper opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that petitioner has not brought the correct facts before this Court and has submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.61/2001 earlier preliminary objection was decided as raised by the petitioner and thereafter impugned order has been passed after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was also submitted that petitioner was provided opportunity to file additional documents in support of his claim during the course of arguments, but no such documents were filed by the petitioner during the course of arguments, and therefore, now the petitioner's contention that -( 7 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 impugned orders have been passed behind his back is not maintainable.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also placed reliance on the order dated 3.8.2004 passed in the case of Inder Talwar Vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.P.No.1300/2001) whereby this Court on a petition filed by said Inder Talwar of M/s. Metal Industries held that the proceedings of eviction after cancellation of allotment by the Assistant Director of Industries was justified. Consequently, this Court had refused to interfere in the matter and writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that since the case of Inder Talwar is same as that of the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and has only submitted that since possession of the property has already been taken, nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Khushal Chand Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. as reported in 2001(1) M.P.L.J. 680 wherein it has been held that where there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 5 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bonafide claim or title. Accordingly, it was held that summary remedy cannot be resorted to in a case where the title is disputed. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwanibai Vs. State of M.P. & Another as reported in 2006(1)M.P.L.J. 370 wherein it has been held that where the disputed house was neither property of the State of M.P. nor public premises, but a non-government private property, the provisions of M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhali) Ahdhiniya, 1974 will not apply and the proceedings drawn by the competent -( 8 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 authority for eviction of the appellant/plaintiff were held to be void ab initio. Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 691 so also (2000) 7 SCC 611.
12. After substantial arguments were advanced on 22.9.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of the sale- deed executed in favour of M/s. the Cotton Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. by the Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. alongwith application dated 26.9.2016 so also the sale-deed which was executed by M/s. The Cotton Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. in favour of M/s. Hindustan Commercial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. It is orally submitted that they do not have any document showing transfer of property in the name of M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. These two documents are perused. Annexure B which is a sale-deed executed by M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. does not disclose the source of the property in the hands of seller, but only mentions that the vendor sells and conveys unconditionally all its rights, title and interest in the immovable properties shown and described in the schedule attached to the document. In para 3 of the sale-deed, it is mentioned that the total sale consideration was negotiated at Rs.2,59,845 and Annas 5 and Pie 9 only and out of this amount of sale consideration, purchaser had deducted the amount of its debts i.e. Rs.76,352, 3 Annas and Pie 8 only including interest upto date and the remaining sum of Rs.1,83,493 and Annas 2 and Pie 1 was paid in cash to M/s. Hindustan Commercial Corporation Ltd. on behalf and as directed by the seller. Part of the sale-deed is in the form of declaration from the vendor and reads as under :-
"5. That the vendor hereby declares and convinces the purchaser that they have and held a good title to transfer of the properties described in the document and the same is free from all charges and incumberances of every sort, and the seller is entitled at law to transfer the same. Any defect in the title of the seller partially or completely with regard to -( 9 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 whole or part of anything indicated in the schedules is hereby expressly stipulated to be guaranteed by the seller. And the seller hereby covenants that he shall be liable to reimburse the purchaser for every loss or damage sustained by them, on account of any defect in the title of seller of any description."
Para 6 of the sale-deed clearly mentions that purchaser agreed to the transaction on the express stipulation that they shall be entitled to continue and commence some industrial work at the site. It is further mentioned that the purchaser shall be entitled to privileges, licenses, amenities and to all the appendages and benefits available to the sellers as owners of the site as such special mention being made here of the Electric Supply Company. Thereafter, the schedule makes a mention of various buildings numbering 18, their valuation less depreciation and the total sale value. Similarly, the site plan enclosed with the sale- deed makes a mention of dimension of the property and plot No.12 is readable measuring 17 Beeghas. On the adjacent plot, a well has been shown and the site plan clearly reads the Gwalior Paint and Chemical Industries Ltd. Similarly sale-deed Annexure A executed by M/s. the Cotton Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. in favour of M/s. Hindustan Commercial Corporation (Private) Ltd. Gwalior, again makes a mention of some debt due to the purchaser and thereafter resolution of the Board of Directors of the vendor dated 5th November, 1958 to transfer the entire fixed assets of the Paint Factory as per list No.1 for Rs.40,000/- and machinery and stores as per list No.2 for Rs.42,369 and Annas 7. Para 5 of this sale- deed again makes a mention that purchaser has agreed that this transaction on the express stipulation that they shall be entitled to continue and commence some industrial work at the site. It is further mentioned that the purchaser shall be entitled to all privileges, licenses, amenities and to all the appendages and benefits available to the seller as owner of the site as such special mention being made here of the Electric Supply Company. Again the schedule makes mention of the same 18 -( 10 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 buildings as are mentioned in the schedule to the sale-deed executed by Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries and the site plan for Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. has been enclosed showing plot No.11 measuring 14 Beeghas and plot No.12 measuring 17 Beeghas. On the south of the property, central railway narrow-gauge has been shown whereas on the north plot No.8 and 9 have been shown.
13. A conjoint reading of the two sale-deeds brought on record by the petitioner alongwith their application dated 26.09.2016 makes it amply clear and demonstrates one thing that property which is the subject matter of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is one which was in possession of M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries. Petitioner cannot go back from this position in view of the site plans attached with the sale-deeds as has been filed by the petitioner itself. Further same industrial activity was carried out before its transfer. Thus, the land in question had lost its agricultural character prior to abolition of the Zamindari. Therefore, the natural corollary to these documents is how M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. came into possession of the said land. There is no explanation to this. Annexure P-16 is for the samvat 2008 which means it is of the year 1951, therefore, it should have shown name of M/s. The Cotton Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. inasmuch as land in question was transferred in their favor vide sale-deed dated 26.08.1950 but their name is not recorded in the said Khasra entry. Similarly name of M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. is also not recorded in the said Khasra entry. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that said Khasra entries do not record name of the allottees to whom the lands were allotted for establishing industries in terms of the memorandum of association of Gwalior State Trust Ltd. Therefore, these Khasra entries cannot be deemed to be fully proved so to draw an assumption under Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code that all entries made under this chapter in land records shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. It is also -( 11 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 settled law that no title is created from Khasra entries for few years specially when there was no source of title found in favour of the person whose name appeared there. Both the sale-deeds do not disclose source of land in the hands of M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd., therefore, in absence of any rebuttal evidence, document Annexure P-8 can be believed to be a proper piece of evidence, specially when there is acceptance of such allotment on lease in favour of M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. through such acceptance being contained in Annexure P-9 duly signed by Sampat Kumar Majeji. One more thing is interesting that in the sale-deed dated 26.08.1950 M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. sold the land in favour of M/s The Cotton Traders Pvt. Ltd. through there directors M/s Motilal Gupta and Brij Mohan Das Nagori. There is no mention of Sampat Kumar Majeji in favour of whom land was originally allotted vide Annexure P/8. There is no mention of the fact that how the land was acquired from said Sampat Kumar Majeji, the original allottee of the land in question, for establishment of Paint and Varnish factory in terms of his application dated 19.11.1942. As the land was originally allotted in favour of Sampat Kumar Majeji and petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that land in question is different from the land which was allotted in favour of Sampat Kumar Majeji, specially when they have not been able to show that there is any other Paint and Varnish Factory in the vicinity and when clause No.3 of Annexure P/8 clearly stipulates that no Paint and Varnish Factory will be allowed to be established within a radius of 50 miles from the Factory of Sampat Kumar Majeji for a period of 20 years, the onus shifted on the petitioner to show that M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. is not the property of Sampat Kumar Majeji to whom Gwalior State had allotted land for establishment of a chemical unit and there existed another Paint and Varnish Factory other than M/s Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries Ltd. which was purchased by the petitioner, logically presumption will be drawn that petitioner is in possession of same land which -( 12 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 Sampat Kumar Majeji was allotted to.
14. Though petitioner has tried to dispute the location, but it has not put forth specifically that Khasra number of the land which it is claiming is not the land which was allotted to Sampat Kumar Majeji. There remains no iota of doubt that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the land being allotted by the Government of Gwalior specially in view of the Panchnama Annexure R/4 dated 17.9.2005 which has not been disputed or rebutted by the petitioner. Petitioner was specifically asked as to what happened to the properties of M/s. Gwalior State Trust after coming into being of the State of M.P. on 1 st November, 1956 or after merger of various princely States in the Union of India, petitioner has tactfully skirted this issue and has not provided any answer.
15. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and from perusal of the record it is apparent that petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.61/2001 inasmuch as Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, had dealt with all the arguments put forth by the petitioner in its impugned order. The said authority has also noted that on 19.10.2000 petitioner had received all the documents filed by the General Manager of the District Trade Industries Center. On 19.11.1942 Sampat Kumar Majeji had addressed a letter to the Industries Minister of Gwalior State for establishment of Paints and Chemical factory and had demanded 100 Beeghas of land on rent/lease for construction of factory and a bungalow over it. The Commissioner has also noted that letter dated 20 th November, 1942 from said Sampat Kumar Majeji to Industries Minister is available on record in which he had requested for providing particular piece of land on priority basis. Learned Commissioner further noted that from page 265 to 270 proposal of the Industries Department and the Council and order of Darbar on 7.2.1943 are available. There was proposal at issue No.9 for grant of lease for 27 Beegha of land. The said proposal was accepted vide order dated 7.2.1943. At page No.261 letter -( 13 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 No.5340 dated 11.2.1943 is available which is in reference to letter dated 19.11.1942 which was written by Sampat Kumar Majeji. The Commissioner has also noted that 27 Bheegha of land was granted for construction of factory and clause 14 of the said letter of grant clearly provides that lessee shall not be entitled to sublet or alienate the land in any other manner. Shri Sampat Kumar Majeji had accepted the said terms and had given his concurrence to the Secretary of the Industries Department at the relevant point of time. It is also not in dispute that the land of erstwhile State of Gwalior which was not earmarked as personal property of the then Ruler of Gwalior State has merged in the State on India attaining Independence on 15 th August, 1947. Once it is clear that on the date of abolition of Zamindari, land in question was not an agricultural land and it already stood diverted, then said land was not available to Bhumiswami in terms of the provisions contained in M.P. Land Revenue Code or its predecessors Act. Thus, the land which was the property of the State of Gwalior and had merged with the State of M.P., provisions of Public Premises Eviction Act, 1974 will be applicable to the said land. Thus, issue No.4 also stands settled against the petitioner. As far as principle of estopple is concerned, when the original allottee was not entitled to sublet the land, then all the subsequent acts of transferring the land from M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries to M/s. the Cotton Traders (Private) Ltd. and then from M/s. the Cotton Traders (Private) Ltd. to M/s. Hindustan Commercial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. are illegal and void transactions, therefore, merely raising of some construction will not attract the principles of estopple.
16. As has been mentioned above, once the land was diverted from agricultural purposes to industrial purposes, the affect of Khasra entry to show that the land was Khudkasht and was freely traded between Khudkasht and the predecessors of the petitioner, is not held good.
17. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court to show that provisions of Public Premises Eviction Act, 1974 will -( 14 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 not applicable because the property in question was neither the property of the State of M.P. nor the public premises, but a non- government private property and accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the law laid down in the case of Bhagwanibai (supra). Similarly, petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Khushal Chand (supra) wherein this Court has held that summary remedy for eviction can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorized occupation of any land which is the property of Government. If in a case there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it. In the present case, facts are otherwise. The petitioner has filed copy of the allotment order issued in favour of Sampat Kumar Majeji as Annexure P/8. Petitioner has not challenged the said document and has not made any prayer for quashing of the said document as not binding on the petitioner. As petitioner has failed to challenge the order of lease and it is apparent from the discussion made above that there was no other industry in the name of M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries except the one which was established on the land allotted to Sampat Kumar Majeji, as a natural corollary it is apparent that the said land when stood vested in the State Government, became property of the State Government, and therefore, there remained no doubt regarding the ownership or title of the said land. As has been noted above, the site plan which has been enclosed by the petitioner alongwith the registered sale-deed dated 5.1.1959 and registered sale-deed dated 26.8.1950 clearly mentions name of M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries. As petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there was any other industry in the name of M/s. Gwalior Paints and Chemical Industries than the one which was established on the land allotted to Sampat Kumar Majeji, it cannot be said that issue of title of the Government to the said property was in dispute. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, -( 15 )- W.P. No.4032/2005 ratio of both the judgments cited by the petitioner are not in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as petitioner has bonafidely failed to show that the land was Khudkasht land or was not the one which was allotted to Sampat Kumar Majeji by the Government of Gwalior.
18. In fact, in the case of Madhav Institute of Technology and Science Vs. M/s. Cimmco Birla Ltd. Gwalior and others as reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 4174 this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others as reported in (2011) 7 SCC 493 held that lease could be cancelled unilaterally in case of violation of conditions. If statute provides for cancellation, then such cancellation may be made unilaterally by the State or its authority and no opportunity needs to be given to the grantee. In the present case also, it is a clear case of violation of conditions of lease as was granted in favour of Sampat Kumar Majeji, and therefore, State has powers to unilaterally cancel the grant. Thus, when it has been established that lease in question was granted by the State of Gwalior and the land which was vested in the State of Gwalior had to be vested in the State of M.P., the answer to the 5th issue that whether the provisions of Public Premises Eviction Act, 1974 are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case is answered in affirmative. Thus, petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-