Case: State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nurbudda Vally Refigerated Products &amp;Ors

Government, the compensation payable shall in no case exceed-(a) the amount paid to Government by the local body less depreciation on buildings, if any, calculated in accordance with Paragraph 3.036 of Chapter III-"Buildings" for the period during which the property was in charge of the local body or the present value of the property, whichever is less;(b) the cost or present value, whichever is less, of any buildings or other works constructed on the property by the local body." 12) A perusal of the order of the Nazul Officer shows that grant of NOC depends upon various factors and fulfillment of certain conditions. It is also not in dispute that the said officer is better equipped with to decide the application for grant of NOC. Undoubtedly, while deciding such an application, Nazul Officer has to consider not only the circulars but also rules and regulations framed by the State Government. Even otherwise, when the ultimate order of Nazul Officer can be canvassed before Collector, the High Court ought not to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 as an appellate court over the finding of fact arrived at by the Nazul Officer. In this context, it is useful to refer the following decisions: In Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 569 , this Court held:- "6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act." In State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 499 , this Court observed as under:- "17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant-State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction." 13) There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution between three organs of the State, i.e., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It is also well established principle that one organ of the State should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of another. Even if the order of the first authority, in the case on hand, Nazul Officer, requires interference, it is for the appellate authority to look into it and take a decision one way or the other and it is not an extraordinary case which warrants direct interference by the High Court under Art. 226. It is relevant to note that the Nazul Officer has adverted to a relevant fact that the Government, while renewing the lease of 3.13 acres of land from 14.03.1999 to 13.03.2029 in favour of the respondent-Company, permitted it to change the use of leased land from industrial purpose to commercial or residential purpose on payment of the lease rent, as payable on the land used or changed for commercial or residential purpose. In such circumstances, if the said direction is applicable, it is but proper on the part of the respondent to comply with it. Even if the stand of the respondent-Company is acceptable and if they are aggrieved of the order of the Nazul Officer, they are free to challenge the same before the Collector as pointed above. In our opinion, interference by the High Court against the order of the original authority, which is based on factual details, is not warranted under writ jurisdiction.14) Coming to the second submission, in view of our conclusion about the order of the High Court dated 26.09.2008, we are satisfied that the second issue is to be answered against the respondent. Here again, this Court, in a series of decisions, has held that when a matter is remitted to the original authority to decide the issue, the said authority must be allowed to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and regulations applicable to the same. There cannot be any restriction to pass an order in such a way de hors to the statutory provisions or regulations/instructions applicable to the case in particular. As pointed out earlier, even if there is any error, it is for the Collector/Government to set it right and the High Court is not justified in asking the officer to personally present and explain his "misconduct". In our considered view, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such a direction.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]12) A perusal of the order of the Nazul Officer shows that grant of NOC depends upon various factors and fulfillment of certain conditions. It is also not in dispute that the said officer is better equipped with to decide the application for grant of NOC. Undoubtedly, while deciding such an application, Nazul Officer has to consider not only the circulars but also rules and regulations framed by the State Government. Even otherwise, when the ultimate order of Nazul Officer can be canvassed before Collector, the High Court ought not to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 as an appellate court over the finding of fact arrived at by the Nazulis relevant to note that the Nazul Officer has adverted to a relevant fact that the Government, while renewing the lease of 3.13 acres of land from 14.03.1999 to 13.03.2029 in favour of the respondent-Company, permitted it to change the use of leased land from industrial purpose to commercial or residential purpose on payment of the lease rent, as payable on the land used or changed for commercial or residential purpose. In such circumstances, if the said direction is applicable, it is but proper on the part of the respondent to comply with it. Even if the stand of the respondent-Company is acceptable and if they are aggrieved of the order of the Nazul Officer, they are free to challenge the same before the Collector as pointed above. In our opinion, interference by the High Court against the order of the original authority, which is based on factual details, is not warranted under writ jurisdiction.14) Coming to the second submission, in view of our conclusion about the order of the High Court dated 26.09.2008, we are satisfied that the second issue is to be answered against the respondent. Here again, this Court, in a series of decisions, has held that when a matter is remitted to the original authority to decide the issue, thesaid authority must be allowed to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and regulations applicable to the same. There cannot be any restriction to pass an order in such a way de hors to the statutory provisions or regulations/instructions applicable to the case in particular. As pointed out earlier, even if there is any error, it is for the Collector/Government to set it right and the High Court is not justified in asking the officer to personally present and explain his "misconduct". In our considered view, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such a direction.