V,“ -.;.. \ r‘i - ‘ V “ HR'IBH ‘\ IN m HIGH COURT'OE"MADHYA PRADESH ATJABALPUR Misc. Fetition NOX @L/ /19§4 PETITI ONERS 1 Sate Vimla singh ~ widow of late B.P. singh. agaé about 51 years 2 ant. Geeta Singh widow cf late B.P. Singh, age§ about 4b years J ’ 3 Dhargnveer singh, son of late B.P. singh, aged abcut 18 tears 4 Mukesh, son of late B.P. Singh, aged about 15 years ‘ Nos. 3 and 4 minors through their mather Sat. Vimla Singh ané Snt. Geeta singh respectively / / higd ’7Id/I 1 ‘3 5y $\'\rt $1» a“ 44V?” Mating Vou‘g REsPONDEIqTS .. 1 State of Maéhya Pradesh thraugh the Secretary. Industries Depth. Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Adaiticnal Directcr of Intaustries, Regional Inéustries Office, Burg General Manager, Distrmt inaustries Centre, Dnrg 4 ‘M/s Rahal Industries. Proprieter‘Rajul Tamrakar (minor) sen of Shri shankerlal Tanrakar, ex Mayan, Municipal Corporatian mrg' ” Ind‘ustrial Estate, mandini Read, V Ehilai, Distt. mrg, 'M.P . Proprietars M/s'G.S. steel Castings. no DR. J, 15 Light Industrias Araa. m 22.)“!‘1' Bhnai 1*. Vex-ans INDIA Pmn‘xom Fan mvDE-R A mm mews 226 227 6F m coNsTrmmow o? IN m NATERE OF CERTISRARL MANDAHUS. PROHIBITION ETC. AND FOR MY GTHER apPRGPRIA‘rE GREEK Egg. K «k ' #1 «dd XI-HC—22 ¥“’ .iah‘m wmw The petitioner hq Article 226/227 of the ( The case of the f 'Industries granted a 16‘ M/s G‘S. Steel Castings land admeasuring 2 z period of 99 years in Li§ purpose .of establishing iron & steel castings industrial unit was est; and the production of commenced.- Thereafter,- Shri R.K. Gupta, partners of M/s G.S. Steel Castings Industries, retired from the said company w.e.f. 11.7.1980 and Shri B.P. Singh, second partner of the company became the sole proprietor of said company and thereafter, Singh and his son c company. Said B.P.lSing'lr‘alsoydied on 30.7.1983 leaving behind Smt.Vimla Singh antlher minor son namely mt. Geeta Singh and her minor namelv Mukesh and there was no other male member in the familv 2.8.2005 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Parag Kotech a. Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Anup Mazumdar, counsel for respondent No.4. s filed this writ petition under Donstitution of Ind ia. letitioner is that the Director of ase in the year 1974 in favour of Industries, Bhilai in respect of a lcres bearing Plot No.15 for a ght Industries Area, Bhilai for the a factory for manufacturing of and other allied products. The ablished on the said leased land Wire nails and H.B. Wire was one of the Shri B.P‘ ontinued as Proprietor of the Dharamveer Singh & S son to look after the business. On Centre passed an order c ancelling the lease granted in ‘favour of said M/s G.S. Steel Castings'lndustries on the ground that it has not completed the construction and it is not carrying on the prc duction work on the lease land. VAgainst the said order the petitioners. had preferred an appeal before the Additional Director’ District Industries d same was allowed bV the Additional Director vzde order dated 23.9.1992 (Annexure P~5) directed Centre on 10.3.1992 an to restore the whole land in favour of the petitioners’ company. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioners came to know that a big part of leased land comprising of abou‘t 3/4th acre has been allotted to one M/s Rah‘ul Industries, therefore, the petitioner raised an objection that as per Circular of the Directorate of Industries during the pendnecy of appeal respondents were not entitled to allot the land to respondent No.4, but When the allotment of big part of lease land in favour of Rahul Industries was not cancelled and said Rahul Industries started construction activities on the petition ers leased land, the petitioers had filed a civil suit, which was later on withdrawn on technical grounds. Further the petitioner has submitted that to their knowledge no proceeding under Ceiling Act was initiated in respect of the leased land and they have never been given any notice by the Urban Land Ceiling XI—HC-22 mam AWW maiw WWW mg wwwk'wm aawm 26.2.1992 the General Manager, District Industries XI-HC-22 H35 allotment made in favouk of raspondent No.4 be quashed and also the order paSSed by the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act decalring the part of the petitioners’ leased land as surplus land. Return on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been filed in which it h in question was leased Centre in favour of M/s G.S, Steel Casting for a period of 99 years; the proprietor of M/s G.S. Steel Kumar Gupta, who was never informed any change in Casting and Shri Gupta. the firm and never obtain any permission to adopt Shri B.P. Singh as a partner as been mentioned that the land out by the District Industries of the company. The petitioners have no rights over the land in question on account of violationof conditions laid down in the'lease deed and the lease deed has been cancelled by the ‘Manager, District Industries Centre, an order was passed by Urban Land Ceiling Act dated 70,600 sq. ft. unutilized with the unit and despite the repeated reminders and notices- said excess land, so pOSSCSSlOD VVaS possession of 55,200 sq. General Durg. Thereafter, the Competent Authority under 18.6; 1985 declaring excess land, which was lying land as the unit did not surrender the as per procedure, Panehnama the lessor assuming ft. of vacant land of Plot No. l5. obtained by the land was never allotted to Shri Ram mm 17mm mats?! mmw ,g, mwtmm atmm Authority, therefore, it has been prayed that the XI—HC-ZZ mg ' mmawm’ @é’iwa; R (5300 MQNO \ W WW5 m SW‘W {SW mmmfw A ,_ WM§WWK %a§%qan%¥r After obtaining possessi 30,000 sq. ft. of land 1 Engineeering Works, o executed in favour of re: said land respondent Nt Against the said ord( 'Authoritv under Urb an 70,600 sq. ft. of land ha been declared as surplus land, the petitioners have pr petitioners are not entitl petition and the petition dismissed be‘en filed on behalf of respondent No 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after deed on account of non- lease the the on, out of 55,200 sq. ft, of land 1as been allotted to M/S‘Rahul n 6.8.1991 a lease deed was ;pondent No.4 herein and on the ).4 is already running his unit. :r passed by the Land Ceiling Act, Competent in which ferred no appeal, therefore, the ed for any relief claimed in this of the petitioners deserves to be Similar return h? cancellation of lease ’estalishment of industrv on land , petitioners had preferred an appeal and vide order dated 23.9.1992, that appeal was allowed and whole land was restored to the therefore, the petitioners are entitled for possession of the Whole land. Whereas, sub mitted that proceedi were initiated by the Co admeasuring 70,600 sq. petitioner company, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 85 4 'ngs in Urban Land Ceiling Act mpetent Authority'and the land ft. land was declared as surplus XI—HC-22 gléw‘mm “mam land, possession, of sams was (takan and ultimately in the year 1991 that land was allotted to respondent No.4 and over the said land respondent No.4 has already established his industry and running the same. It has also been argued that si lee R.K. Gupta never intimated the Industries Department, State Government about his retirement from M/s (}.S. Steel B.P.Singh has the Casting and how become was partner also informed, therefore, the petitioners have no right to file the petition. Having heard lear ed counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. It is admitted position that vide Annexure R4—l th Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act passed an order on 2.5.1986 declaring the land admeasuring 70,600 sq. ft. as surplus land under the said Act and the possession was taken. Thereafter, No.4, respondent No.4 has set up his industry in that area also. As far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the company was never informed about the land ceiling proceedings is devoid of any merit, for the reasons that the an application was moved under Section 20(A) of the Act for exemption of land flom the ceiling and on the sald appllcation the State Government passed the order dated 226 1985 not the said land was allotted to respondent lease deed was executed in the year 1991 and XI-HC-22 3am, Wm, m§w m MN"? %mw \Wwm \mW 14mm WW mmm Wé_. . W .. .hn u. WMk‘wm > aamm M/s G.S. Steel Castings to of land and in possession was taken against which no appeal questioning the legality of said order was preferred by the pet. said that the petitioner: cailing proceedings. Therefore, in View ( was already declared s Ceiling Act, 1976, possession was taken over same was o 4 in the year 1991 and that enged bV the pet1t10ners before or the State Government, th1s lapse of 9 years in which a lief clausetw‘as made that the mptent Authority’under Urban ’6 declaring a big§:"ipart of land as s11 plus land be quashed is not round has been raised in the petition for quashment o the said order nor it has been mentioned as to how tha order was illegal, and that the- petitioners have no othe the writ petition is not petitioners had any gri vances against the said order Land Cciling Act, petitioners’ maintainable. Even no €ffect that land admeasurin‘g (Annexure R4—2) to the 16,520 sq. ft. was declared free from Urban Land Ceiling Act and further asked surrender remaining 70,600 sq. ft. pursuance of that the it cannot be itioners.Therefore, ; had no knowledge about the if the above facts that the land urplu‘s under the Urban Land allotted to respondent N order has not been chall the Competent Authority writ petition filed after simple request in the rc: order passed by the Co 197 remedy therefore, at this stage aintainable. ’ HoWever, if the XI—HC-22 mam WW *‘WW then they ought to haw: approached the Compatent Authority in accordance with law. The petition is de‘Loid of any morit, the same is liable to be dismissed; as such it is dismissed. L.C.BHAD°o (unwa‘m .,/»