Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Narmada Ginning And Pressing ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2020
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-7460-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-7460-2020
(M/S NARMADA GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY HARDA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-05-2020
Due to outbreak of pandemic (COVID-19), there is lock-down in the
country and, therefore, as per the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this
matter is taken-up through video conferencing.
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. Rajeshwar Rao, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1
and 2/State.
Mr. R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the intervener. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has moved an application i.e. I.A.No.4014/2020 for amendment in the petition.
Looking to the nature of the application and the averments made therein, since the petition is yet to be admitted, the aforesaid application for amendment filed by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the petition within a period of seven days and supply a copy of the amended petition to the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission as well as on interim relief. Looking to the nature of the dispute involved in the present petition and considering the outbreak of COVID-19, I am not inclined to adjourn the case for another day unnecessarily and on the basis of material available, counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are permitted to argue on admission and on interim relief.
Originally, the present petition has been filed on 16.05.2020 challenging the order dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure-P/10) whereby the petitioner has been asked to handover the possession of the land leased out to the petitioner for a Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 21/05/2020 18:01:27 2 WP-7460-2020 period of 30 years and the said lease period came to an end on 31.03.2019. However during the pendency of the petition, the State Government has also issued an order on 12.05.2020 rejecting the resolution forwarded by respondent No.3 whereby proposal was made to convert the leased land given to the petitioner into a freehold land and as per the petitioner on the next day, the possession of the land in question has been taken over by respondent No.3 and hence, the order dated 12.05.2020 has also been challenged by way of amendment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was leased out to the petitioner in the year 1966 and that lease was renewed from time to time continuously till 1975. Thereafter, an application for grant of permanent lease was moved by the petitioner although the lease was renewed for a period of three years in the year 1975 and that position was continued till 1989 due to periodical renewal of the lease. In 1989, a permanent lease was executed for a period of 30 years with a condition that the lease can be renewed for a period of 99 years. There was some dispute arose about the renewal of the lease then a Writ Petition No.4918/2009 was filed by the petitioner which got dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2009 by the writ Court. Thereafter a Writ Appeal No.459/2009 was preferred by the petitioner/appellant which got disposed of setting aside the order passed by the writ Court as the State Government appeared before the Appellate Court and has given its consent for considering the application for renewal of lease if the same is made afresh before the Municipal Council, Harda and it was also directed that the petitioner may also submit an application for conversion of lease hold land into freehold land on payment of required charges as per the rules which known as M.P. Municipal (Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rules, 2016 (in short the 'Rules, 2016') framed during the pendency of writ appeal.
Thereafter, an application was moved on 24.05.2018 for conversion of the lease hold land into a freehold land. The application was pending and in the meantime, the lease period was expired on 31.03.2019. It is submitted by Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 21/05/2020 18:01:27 3 WP-7460-2020 learned counsel for the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner for conversion of land had to be considered within a period of 120 days as per the requirement of Rule 20(6) of the Rules, 2016 but that application was not decided within the statutory period and in the meantime, the order impugned dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure-P/10) was passed by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the State Government taking note of the fact that the lease period is already expired also passed an order on 12.05.2020 rejecting the proposal forwarded by respondent No.3 to the State Government for considering the lease hold land of the petitioner into freehold land. He further submits that on the next day i.e. 13.05.2020, respondent No.3 has taken possession of the land in a hot haste manner. He further submits that respondents were fully aware of the fact that the petition has been filed by the petitioner but the same could not be listed as there was complete lock- down all over the country. Counsel further submits that looking to the conduct of the respondents, it can be easily gathered that all actions taken by the respondents are politically motivated. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court considering the outbreak of COVID-19 all over the world, passed an order in Writ Petition No.6062/2020 whereby the Division Bench issued certain directions to the State Authorities not to issue any orders or take any coercive measure including dispossession to avoid any unnecessary litigation but even violating the said direction, the respondents/Authorities have acted upon and dispossessed the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after taking possession of the land, the Authorities are trying to remove the labourers of the petitioner company residing over the land in question and they are also trying to demolish the construction and boundary wall relating to the petitioner's factory.
Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 submits that since possession has already been taken over, it is not appropriate for issuing any direction for the Authority to restore the Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 21/05/2020 18:01:27 4 WP-7460-2020 possession of the land in question. He has also submitted that the lease period is already expired and at present, there is no lease in favour of the petitioner, therefore, no direction can be issued by way of interim measure in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the petition needs to be heard finally and asking for some time to file a reply. He has also assured that the Authority would not take any action for dispossessing the labourers or any further demolition as is being apprehended by the petitioner.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State is also seeking time to file a reply.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener submits that it is every likelihood that if interim relief is not granted in favour of the labourers then the respondents will dispossess them and will also demolish the construction over the land in question. However, the application of intervention can not be considered at this stage and that will be considered at the time of hearing.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the respondents are directed to file their reply to the petition as also to the application for intervention filed by the intervener within a period of six weeks.
Considering the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the land since last 50 years and considering the hardship if the labourers are dispossessed residing over there, I am inclined to grant interim direction that the respondents may not take any coercive action against the petitioner and also against the labourers and they are also directed to maintain status quo in all respect till next date of hearing including the construction situated over the land in question.
List this matter after six weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 21/05/2020 18:01:27 5 WP-7460-2020 Devashish Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 21/05/2020 18:01:27