1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5325/2006. (Bhagawatilal Mundra Vs. State & Ors.) Date of Order :: 20th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Ms.Pramila Acharya,for the petitioner. Mr.Kailash Joshi, for the respondent No.3. .... The petitioner Bhagawatilal, said to be running a petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited on a piece of land leased out by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara since the year 1953 and doing the business in the name of partnership firm M/s Chhaganlal Bagatawarmal, Hamirgarh Road, Bhilwara, has filed this writ petition while stating that the State Government issued a Notification in the year 2000 in which it was clarified that all the land that were being used for commercial purposes and were leased out for the period mentioned therein could be given on 99 years' lease on making payment of one time lease fees. The petitioner has stated the grievance that despite himself having made an application for grant of such one time lease, having addressed several representations in that regard, and also having made payment of the requisite fees of Rs.750/- for taking up of the matter by the Settlement Committee of the Municipal Council, nothing has been done by the respondents. The petitioner has 2 prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “(a) Direct the respondents to execute a 99 years lease with petitioner for the land of the petrol pump of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the notification Annex.-2; (b) Declare that action of the respondent no.3 in making renewal of the lease deed after every 7 years or so and charging double the previous amount is unjustified and further direct the respondent no.3 to return the excess amount deposited in the name of lease amount forthwith; (c) In the alternative and without prejudice, the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time/ expeditiously as is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. (d) Grant such further relief (s) which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and (e) Award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner.” The contesting respondent has taken several objections in the reply including that the lease in question had been renewed from time to time but lastly the renewal had expired on 30.07.2005 and the petitioner remains unauthorised occupant thereafter; that the petitioner has made encroachment over the other piece of land too and appropriate proceedings were adopted against him. It has also been 3 pointed out that Civil Suit No.185/1993 was pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.3, Bhilwara. It has also been suggested that the disputed land is adjacent to the railway under bridge whose expansion is proposed and, therefore, the land cannot be granted on 99 years lease basis. It is also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi because if any receipt was mistakenly issued in his name, he does not stand in the capacity of the lessee. During the course of submissions, when the facts concerning the suit as stated in the reply were noticed, learned counsel for the parties were posed the questions about the present status of the said suit and the subject-matter thereof. Learned counsel for the parties prayed for some time and having regard to the circumstances, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) was also requested to make inquiries. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has enquired about the matter and has submitted a report as received per fax from the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara. From the said report it is noticed that the suit was filed by M/s. Chhaganlal Bagatawarmal on 06.09.1993 and is pending in the Court bearing Civil Suit No.13/1994. It has also been noticed that a temporary injunction order was issued in the said suit on 18.11.1997 restraining the defendants from dispossessing the 4 plaintiff from the disputed land for 6 months; and yet another order was made on 21.03.2001 for not dispossessing the plaintiff for another 6 months and during this period, the plaintiff was required to take up the proceedings for renewal of the lease deed and approval of the plan etc. It has also been pointed out that another application for temporary injunction has been moved by the said plaintiff on 10.03.2005 wherein the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Bhilwara is yet to be served as it was found that the said office has merged with the Public Works Department at Mandal and the plaintiff has been directed to produce correct address and for this reason, the matter remains pending. In relation to the civil suit, it has been pointed out that the proceedings are pending for disposal of an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC with the next date as 17.03.2009. So far the submissions as made in this writ petition about the locus standi of the petitioner are concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner has filed this writ petition while stating the facts that he was carrying on business in partnership in firm name M/s Chhaganlal Bagatawarmal. The submission as made by the respondent that the land was leased to the said firm only and mistakenly a receipt was issued in the petitioner's name, is neither of any effect nor of 5 relevance and it seems that the aforesaid suit has also been filed on behalf of the same firm. So far the grievance as raised by the petitioner about inaction on his representations is concerned, even while taking certain cursory averments regarding some encroachment by the petitioner on additional land and about some proposition of expansion of a railway under bridge, the respondents have failed to point out if the representations made by the petitioner were ever given due consideration and a considered decision was taken thereupon after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. From the copies of representations as placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner had regularly been representing that he was ready to get 99 years' lease and has expressed his willingness to make payment of the amount requisite therefor. There appears no reason or justification that the respondents have simply chosen to sit tight over the matter and have not taken any decision on the repeated representations made by the petitioner. With such inaction, the respondents have driven the petitioner to this unnecessary and rather avoidable litigation. So far the term of lease is concerned, firstly it appears that the learned Trial Court dealing with the said suit has 6 issued certain orders directing the plaintiff to make appropriate application and in any case, when the petitioner has been making representations right from the year 2000 for grant of long term lease of 99 years, the respondents do not appear justified in suggesting as if all the rights of the petitioner got eclipsed merely with the end of the term of a particular renewal in the year 2005. Even in that regard, nothing has prevented the respondents to inform the petitioner of their decision. It is the sheer inaction on the part of the respondents that has given the cause for this petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed with directions to the respondents to take appropriate decision on the application and representations as made by the petitioner for grant of long term lease for the land in dispute. However, at the same time, when it is noticed that the suit as filed by the petitioner's firm way back in the year 1993 is yet pending and the 3rd temporary injunction application as moved therein has remained pending for service for want of proper address of one of the non-petitioners, it is also considered appropriate to enjoin upon the petitioner the requirement that he shall take all the requisite steps for earliest disposal of the said temporary injunction application and so also of the original civil suit and 7 in case the petitioner be found causing any delay in the matter, it shall be desirable that the Trial Court concerned would pass appropriate orders in relation to the said suit for its earliest disposal. With the foregoing observations and requirements, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents are directed to decide finally the application and representations as made by the petitioner for grant of long term lease within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that it shall be permissible for the petitioner to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if any grievance remains thereafter. There shall be no orders as to costs of this petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni