Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S.K. Sarawagi And Co. Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By ... vs R.B. Seth Sreeram Durga Prasad And ... on 25 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALT399, 1997 A I H C 1674, (1996) 2 ANDH LT 399
Author: M.H.S. Ansari
Bench: M.H.S. Ansari
JUDGMENT P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Fourth respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal. Petitioner - respondent No. 1 has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking renewal of the lease-deed granted to it in G.O. Ms.No. 255, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 29-7-1995 for mining manganese ore over an a extent of acres 34.27 cents in S.No. 124 (old S.No. 25/2) of Avagudem village, Garividi Mandal, Vizinagaram District. It appears, however, that the appellant was originally granted a mining lease for acres 40-30 cents in the year 1970 in the same survey number. Both the leases were for a period of 20 years. The appellant complained, however, that the writ petitioner - respondent No. 1 encroached upon 12-00 acres out of the area granted to it. It filed writ petition No. 3482 of 1971 for a direction to demarcate the area of acres 40-30 cents granted on lease to it and to place it in secure possession thereof after removing the encroachments. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned single judge. On appeal, however, a Bench reversed the order of the learned single Judge and held that the parties had to work out their rights in appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court and not in a writ petition. As a result of the above, according to the appellant, it got possession only to the extent of acres 28-61 cents. The present action, however, has arisen at the time of the renewal of the lease and what appeared to be in dispute between the parties in the earlier writ petition is acknowledged as the appellant's lease of the extent of acres 40-30 cents was not given effect to and limited to acres 28-61 cents only and the fourth respondent being in possession of land in excess of acres 34-27 cents of its own lease. After going through the exercise of ascertaining the facts in dispute., learned single judge has passed the following order:
" It may not be necessary for me to go into the question since it is for the competent authorities to take a decision regarding the disputed area and pass appropriate orders in that behalf in accordance with law. It must be made clear that neither the petitioner nor the 4th respondent has any vested right for the said area and it is for the appropriate authorities to take a decision in that behalf.
Having regard to the above facts, there can be no objection for granting a renewal to the petitioner in respect of the undisputed area of Acs. 28-61 cents which is admittedly in possession of the petitioner. Likewise, there can be no objection for the execution of a lease deed in respect of the area of acs. 34-27 cents for which a renewal has already been granted in favour of the 4th respondent after demarcating the said area. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the renewal application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of this order. There will be a similar direction to execute a lease deed in favour of the 4th respondent for the extent of acs. 34-27cents within the said period. As regards the disputed area of acs. 11-69 cents, the authorities will take a decision and pass appropriate orders in that behalf also within the said period. Meanwhile, both parties shall not be permitted to carry on any operations in the disputed area of acs. 11-69 cents which may be demarcated by the authorities concerned. The petitioner and the 4th respondent may, however, be permitted to carry on the operation in their respective undisputed areas pending the issuance of final orders by the concerned respondents as directed above."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out to us that in course of the judgment learned single Judge has been carried away with the impression that it has no right to get the lease renewed for any term which in accordance with the rules and the conditions of lease is a right in it subject to any action for the cancellation of the lease. Observations if any in this behalf, in our opinion, however, are of no consequence as in our view the directions issued by the learned single Judge are going to meet the requirements of law in full. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has pointed out that there cannot be a renewal of lease contemplated without recognising the extent of land covered by the lease and the direction issued by the learned single Judge thus to confine the renewal to acres 28-61 cents is contrary to the very lease which the appellant had got at the first instance. Going by the technicalities of the laws and taking notice of lease for a leasehold upon which the lessee has possession, renewal obviously will be for the extent of the land leased and not for an extent less than the lease. On the facts of the instant case, however, the appellant was not put in possession of the land covered by the original lease and the effective leasehold was limited to acres 28-61 cents. By recognising the same as a fact learned single Judge has recognised the right of the appellant for the renewal of the lease and issued necessary directions in this behalf. Learned single Judge, however, has not over-looked the grievance of the appellant in respect of the remaining extent of leasehold of acres 11-69 cents and issued directions in this behalf so that the original promise for the lease of acres 40-30 cents is effectuated. He has directed the competent authority to do the needful in this behalf and once the same is accomplished and accordingly lease in respect of the said extent of land is granted to the appellant his grievance is taken care of. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has emphasised that the exercise of granting renewal of the lease to the extent of acres 28-61 cents and ascertaining the lost area from the original lease to the extent of acres 11-69 cents should be one common exercise and not separate exercises. Granting lease, however, is not just a paper work. A lease is given effect to by delivery of possession. If all the paper work is completed and delivery is given not to the exact extent of the leasehold, the lease is not effectuated. Learned single Judge has taken care of avoiding this anomaly and has accordingly issued appropriate directions. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, canvassed before us that the law has assigned the function of deciding to renew the lease to the Government of the State and not to any other authority. He has brought to our notice certain subsequent events which appear to show that some Assistant Director has entered into some sort of enquiry to ascertain the extent of land originally granted but lost to the appellant. We do not, however, see any conflict with such act of the Assistant Director and the function which the Government has to exercise in granting the lease and in that matter a real and effective lease. This observation on the alleged subsequent events, however, shall not affect any adjudication in the proceeding in Writ Petition No. 28692 of 1995.
3. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.