Ganpatsinh Bhikhsinh Purohit vs Vice Chairman
2021 Latest Caselaw 5830 Guj

   C/SCA/8624/2012                            IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


      MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
                                In
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8624 of 2012

==========================================================

GANPATSINH BHIKHSINH PUROHIT Versus VICE CHAIRMAN ========================================================== Appearance:

for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR PC KAVINA, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR RASESH H PARIKH for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR HS MUNSHAW for the RESPONDENT(s) No. NOTICE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

Date : 11/06/2021 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. The applicant-original petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following main reliefs -

"(B) YOUR Lordships be pleased to clarify order dated 05.08.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court in Special Civil Application No. 8624 of 2012.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to allow this Application by issuing appropriate order and/or directions, directing the respondent authorities to measure area by appropriate authority and present a draft lease deed to be executed by the applicant within the stipulated time and to allot forthwith 500 Sq. meters of land to the Applicant for construction of Rest House at Saputara Bus Station from survey no. 15/B or, in the alternative, to allot 500 Sq. meters of

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

land to the Applicant from survey number 15/A with clear way to approach the said land, in the interest of justice;

(E)YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondent authorities as may be deemed fit, just and proper for allotting 500 Sq. meters of land to the Applicant on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Application, in the interest of justice"

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the application -

2.1 That the subject matter of the land is a land situated at Saputara, District Dang. The Collector, Dang District, by an order dated 18.05.2001, requisitioned 1813 sq. meters of land from Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "ST Corporation") and allotted the said land to the Information Department, Gujarat State. As the record unfolds, the land in question remained unutilized for more than 5 years and hence, the ST Corporation, vide communication dated 18.11.2009, requested the District Collector, Dang to re-allot the land admeasuring 1313 sq. meters out of the total land admeasuring 1813 sq. meters mainly because 500 sq. meters of land was already used by the Information Department for proposed development of Saputara Bus Station.

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

2.2 That the Respondent Corporation invited the tenders by issuing public notice on 27.08.2009 for giving the land admeasuring 500 sq. meters adjacent to ST Corporation Bus Stop at Saputara on lease for 30 years. The record shows that the applicant filled in the tender on 04.09.2009.

2.3 It is the case of the Applicant that the ST Corporation informed the applicant that vide Resolution No. 8996, the offer made in relation to the tender dated 27.08.2009 to construct and operate rest house at Saputara Bus Station for 30 years on rental basis is approved. The record shows that the applicant was asked to deposit Earnest Money of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Annual Lease Rent of Rs. 13,32,228/-, which came to be deposited by the applicant. As per the record, by communication dated 20.07.2010, the authorized officer of ST Corporation wrote a letter to the applicant requesting him to execute lease deed and thereafter obtain possession of the land in question. It is also a matter of fact that by communication dated 26.09.2011, the Collector, Dang, sanctioned lease for 1313 sq. meter in favour of the ST Corporation upto the year 2034. By communication dated 18/19.10.2011, the ST Corporation informed the applicant that the State Government has granted lease upto 2034 and therefore, the original lease period shall stand reduced to

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

23 years instead of 30 years and the applicant was asked to send his consent.

2.4 The record further indicates that by further communication dated 01.11.2011, the ST Corporation addressed a communication to the Collector, Dang to allot unused land of 1313 sq. meters for development of Saputara Bus Stand wherein it is inter alia stated that there are huge pits and estimated cost for levelling would be Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

2.5 Again by further communication dated 11.11.2011, the ST Corporation addressed a letter to the District Collector, Dang asking for permission to use 500 sq. meters for commercial purpose out of the land of 1313 sq. meters of land granted on 26.09.2011. It is the case of the applicant that somewhere in June 2012, the ST Corporation again proposed to re-tender the process of inviting bids to construct Rest House and being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred writ petition before this Court being SCA No. 8624 of 2012 and inter alia prayed for the following reliefs -

"(A) ....

(B) The Honourable Court would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the 500 sq. mtrs. land situated at Saputara Bus Stand by executing

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

the lease deed as per subject tender/offer acceptance letter dated 15.4.2010 to the petitioner.

(C ) The Honourable Court would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or anyother appropriate writ, direction or order by holding that the Respondents have illegally acted contrary to the terms of the tender accepted by them and petitioner is entitled to get the possession of the 500 sq. mtrs. land at Saputara Bus Stand and is entitled to get the lease deed to be executed by the respondents under the subject tender accepted by the respondents."

The said petition was allowed with cost by order dated 05.08.2014, whereby this Court was pleased to direct to comply with the order dated 19.10.2011 as well as communication dated 20.07.2010.

2.6 The record indicates that as the order passed by this Court in SCA No. 8624/12 was not complied with, the applicant preferred MCA (For Contempt) No. 3424 of 2014. Meanwhile, the ST Corporation preferred SLP (Civil) No. 33460 of 2014 challenging the order passed by this Court in SCA No. 8624 of 2012 dated 05.08.2014. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 15.12.2014 was pleased to dismiss the SLP except that the order of awarding exemplary cost was quashed and set aside. Thus, the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in SCA No. 8624/12 vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 became

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

final. After the SLP was dismissed, the ST Corporation through opponent no.2 herein made a statement before this Court and in view of the said statement, MCA (For Contempt) No. 3424 of 2014 came to be disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2015.

2.7 That by an order dated 19.01.2017, the Collector, Dang, granted permission to use 500 Sq. meters of land for commercial purpose out of 1313 sq. meters of land and accordingly, the District Collector, also granted permission to the ST Corporation to enter into a lease deed for development of 500 sq. meters of land out of 1313 sq. meters of land.

2.8 That the Applicant herein thereafter

of 2017 and inter alia prayed as under -

"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this Misc. Civil Application.

B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents and further to punish them for willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 05.08.2014 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 8624 of 2012.

C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to purge the contempt by complying with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the Judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 in Special civil Application

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

No. 8624 of 2012.

D. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to tender unconditional apology for not complyinig with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the Judgemtn and order dated 05.08.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8624 of 2012."

That by an order dated 07.01.2019, the said MCA (For Contempt) NO. 842 of 2017 came to be rejected with a liberty to the applicant to make substantive claim and has observed thus -

"11. If one looks at the letter dated 19th October 2011 and communication dated 20th July, 2010, one would have to appreciate the fact that there is a reference to the communication of 14th May 2010, which would be seen from the letter placed on page no.51 of the compilation and it has a clear reference that the piece of land, which was intended to be parting to the petitioner, is for putting up the Rest House construction.

12. As against this, submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is required to be noted that the communication dated 11 November, 2011 th

at page no.452 would clearly indicate that the intended land for Rest House was onlhy the land which was approved by the Collector and no other land.

13. We are of the view that when there is a controversy qua the identification of the land itself and when the number of documents have been placed on record and substantial contention in support thereof, this Court in the contempt

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

jurisdiction may be justified in embarking upon the task of verifying, appreciating and re-appreciating the documents and rival contentions as it would amount to hear the matter afresh. Therefore, we do not go into the fine contention qua the identification, suffice it to say that the present application for initiating contempt would not call for any initiation of contempt proceedings, which would not debar the application from laying this substantive claim in an appropriate proceedings as permissible under law. The present application therefore, fails and is hereby rejected. Notice discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

As stated by the applicant in this application, by communication dated 19.11.2019, the ST Corporation asked the applicant to show-cause within three days, why security deposit should not be forfeited, which came to be replied by the applicant vide communication dated 30.11.2019. The applicant, again by communication dated 14.07.2020 and 10.09.2020, requested the ST Corporation to execute the lease deed and therefore, the present application is filed for the prayers as mentioned hereinabove.

3. As the record indicates, the present application is styled as application for direction/clarification. After relying upon the factual matrix, it is contended by the applicant that by this application, the applicant makes a substantive claim for allotment of 500 sq. mtrs.

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

of land and also to enter into a lease deed as per award of the tender in favour of the applicant as per the communication dated 14.05.2010. It is contended by the applicant that the ST Corporation is under an obligation to allot 500 sq. mtrs. of land to the applicant and according to the applicant, "uncleared territory" is with respect to which part of survey no.15 is to be alloted from the said land. It is the case of the applicant that the present application is required to be filed as even after mandatory order dated 05.08.2014 passed by this Court in SCA No. 8624 of 2012 and two Misc. Civil Applications filed by the applicant, the ST Corporation has not allotted land admeasuring 500 sq. meters for construction of rest house at Saputara Bus Station. It is the say of the applicant that the directions so issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 passed in SCA No. 8624 of 2012 has attained finality as the SLP filed by the ST Corporation has been already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and still however, the same has not been complied with.

4. The Applicant has based his case on the factual matrix arising out of the writ petition as well as the two Misc. Civil Applications for contempt filed by the applicant. The applicant has also relied upon the further development, i.e., the communication dated 19.01.2017 and 03.11.2017. On the aforesaid premises, it is contended by

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

the applicant that the scope of inquiry is limited to the aspect of allotment of land admeasuring 500 sq. meters to be made either from revenue survey no. 15/A or 15/B. The applicant has contended before this Court that this Court may issue directions to the opponents to allot the land admeasuring 500 sq. meters to the applicant from survey no. 15B as it is abundantly clear that the land admeasuring 1313 sq. meters was requested to be re-allotted by the ST Corporation to develop it for commercial purpose. It is contended by the applicant that it is the specific case of the ST Corporation before the Collector that the land of survey number 15/A is uneven and requires enormous expenses to the tune of Rs. 1 crore for levelling the land from survey no. 15/B.

5. It is the case of the applicant that long time has elapsed and the applicant has lost more than 6 years of his lease period and it is specifically stated by the applicant that "only out of commercial exigencies as substantial resources of the applicant are locked in connection with the present tender, the applicant is willing to take possession of 500 sq. meters of land out of survey no. 15/A, provided the applicant is given a clear approach road". It is contended by the applicant that such statement is made without prejudice to the contentions of the applicant for allotment of land out of survey no.15/B.

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

6. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the ST Corporation has filed an affidavit-in- reply, on behalf of the Chief Engineer, opponent no.2 herein dated 12.02.2021. In the said affidavit, it is mainly contended by the opponent no.2 herein that as per the statement made on behalf of the ST Corporation more particularly before this Court in MCA (For Contempt) No. 3424/14, the extreme corner shown in the map at page 77 has already been allotted and a lease deed would be executed. It is the case of the opponent no.2 that thereafter, the ST Corporation has addressed number of letters to the applicant for taking over of the possession of the land at site and execute lease deed. Such letters are also relied upon by the ST Corporation. It is the case of the opponent that the applicant is also sent a copy of the lease deed, however, the applicant has never bothered to come forward for execution thereof inspite of repeated reminders. It is reiterated that necessary action for handing over of the possession of the land show in the map and execution of the lease deed shall be taken provided that the applicant cooperates with the authority.

7. Pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by this Court in this application, a further affidavit has been filed by the opponent no.2 mainly for grant of 6 weeks time as the entire

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

matter was required to be placed before the Board of Directors of ST Corporation for appropriate final decision. The further affidavit has been filed by opponent no.2 dated 30.03.2021. Apart from the factual matrix relied upon, it is contended by the deponent that the opponents have given topmost priority to the matter and the officers of ST Corporation have visited the site. The deponent has visited the site. The deponent has also relied upon the resolution dated 17.03.2021. It is inter alia contended by the deponent that the land in question was leased by the District Collector, Dang, for a period of 30 years vide order dated 10.06.1974. Thereafter, it is also extended for a further period of 30 years w.e.f. 2004 on various terms. It is the case of the opponents that the lease was extended with a condition to use the land in question for the purpose of ST Stand/ST Depot and further stipulated condition that prior permission of the said authority as well as State Government would be necessary in case of commercial use of the land in question. Accordingly, a proposal has been submitted to the State of Gujarat on 24.03.2021 for approval of the lease marked portion of the land. It is the case of the deponent that the concerned department, i.e., Ports and Transport Department has also given its sanction and the proposal is forwarded to the Revenue Department on 26.03.2021 for due approval. It is contended

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

by the opponents that this Court may grant some time for taking final decision on allotment of land and execution of agreement in the interest of justice.

8. Heard Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashesh Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the opponents.

9. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this application and has more particularly drawn attention of this Court to the directions issued by this Court in SCA No.8624 of 2012, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate has also invited attention of this Court to the observations made by this Court in SCA No. 8624 of 2012 and more particularly paragraphs no. 6 and 7 thereof as ell as the directions issued in para 11. Mr. Kavina further contended that the offer was made way back in the year 2010 and inspite of mandatory directions issued by this Court, confirmed by the Apex Court, the land is not being allotted. Mr. Kavina vehemently submitted that the directions issued by this Court has already been confirmed by the Apex Court and according to Mr. Kavina, learned senior advocate, the applicant almost conceded before the Hon'ble Apex Court as far as the cost is

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

concerned. Referring to further affidavit-in- reply dated 30.03.2021 and the communication dated 14.05.2010 and the three options mentioned in the said affidavit, it has been contended by Mr Kavina, learned senior advocate that even according to the opponents, the land of Survey No. 15/A requires to be levelled, which entails huge expenses. According to Mr. Kavina, the other lands mentioned in options 2 and 3 are available for allotment in favour of the applicant. Mr. Kavina vehemently submitted that after 11 years, the opponents now cannot say that the applicant may accept option no.1 only. Mr. Kavina also extensively referred to the communication dated 19.10.2017, i.e., Collector's permission and contended that the permission which has been granted by the Collector relates to land admeasuring 1313 sq. meters out of 1813 sq. meters and the same would be of Survey No. 15/B. It was contended by Mr. Kavina that the opponents have never asked for permission for the land which was put to auction and the Collector's permission dated 19.10.2017 has not been interfered with and it is an admission and acceptance on the part of the opponents. Referring to the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 3424 of 2014, it was contended by Mr. Kavina, learned senior advocate that on a statement made on behalf of the opponents, the contempt application came to

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

be disposed of and still however, the directions issued by this Court which has been confirmed by the Apex Court has not been adhered to by the opponents and therefore, it was contended that the application be allowed as prayed for. Mr. Kavina also specifically invited attention of this Court to the photographs which are at page 171/D forming part of the further affidavit dated 30.03.2021 filed by the opponent no.2 and contended that the said land has remained unused and that was the land for which the lease was extended by the Collector. Mr. Kavina also referred to the other options no.2 and 3 and the photographs which are forming part of the said affidavit and contended that the opponents admit that the land bearing survey no.15A would require huge expenses for levelling. Mr. Kavina also contended that there is no approach road to the same and therefore, appropriate directions for allotment of land of Survey no. 15/B be passed as prayed for by allowing the present application.

10. Per contra Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the opponent ST Corporation has opposed this application. Mr. Munshaw contended that the applicant did not come forward even though repeated requests were made and instead, filed the contempt application being MCA No. 842 of 2017, which ultimately came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2019. Mr. Munshaw extensively referred to the final

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

affidavit dated 30.03.2021 and contended that as per the orders passed by this Court, the matter has been examined at highest level of the ST Corporation. The officers visited the site and examined the three options which are placed before this Court by way of further affidavit and that there was nothing wrong in approaching the Government. Mr. Munshaw has also relied upon and taken this Court through the noting which is forming part of the further affidavit and has contended that as soon as the permission is granted, the appropriate actions will be taken by the opponents. It is contended by Mr. Munshaw that the process is required to be followed and accordingly the opponents have followed the procedure. Mr. Munshaw contended that the prayers prayed for in first part of para 13C cannot be considered as the same is denied by this Court in writ petition and both the contempt applications. It was contended by Mr. Munshaw that the opponents have offered the land from day one, however, the applicant has not approached the authorities. It was contended by Mr. Munshaw that the applicant has no right to select the land of their choice. Mr. Munshaw also contended that the land to be allotted is crystal clear from the map attached with the communication dated 20.07.2010, According to Mr. Munshaw, the direction which is issued b ythis Court in the writ petition is to comply with the same. According to Mr. Munshaw,

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

the opponents are ready to allot the land as soon as the revenue department clears for which short time be granted. According to Mr. Munshaw, it is the applicant who has wasted the time and the application being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

11. Mr. Kavina, learned advocate in further reply, has contended that it is unfair on the part of the opponents to say that the applicant has caused delay. Mr. Kavina reiterated that the appropriate land be allotted as per the directions issued by this Court as prayed for in this application. On the aforesaid premises, it was contended by Mr. Kavina that the application be allowed as prayed for.

12. Before reverting to the contentions raised in this application, it would be appropriate to refer to the prayers prayed for in the main writ petition -

"(A) ....

(B) The Honourable Court would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the 500 sq. mtrs. land situated at Saputara Bus Stand by executing the lease deed as per subject tender/offer acceptance letter dated 15.4.2010 to the petitioner.

(C ) The Honourable Court would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or anyother appropriate writ, direction or order by

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

holding that the Respondents have illegally acted contrary to the terms of the tender accepted by them and petitioner is entitled to get the possession of the 500 sq. mtrs. land at Saputara Bus Stand and is entitled to get the lease deed to be executed by the respondents under the subject tender accepted by the respondents."

The said writ petition came to be allowed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2014, wherein the following directions came to be given -

"11. In the premises aforesaid, petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to comply with the order dated 19.10.2011 forthwith. The communication dated 20.07.2010 addressed by the respondent no. 3 shall be complied with accordingly. The petitioner shall be paid the actual cost incurred by him during the entire process by the respondent Corporation by way of costs. The respondent Corporation shall act in accordance with law and allow the petitioner to resume work at the place allotted as per the tender after the lease deed is executed."

Thus, in para 11, reference is made to the communication dated 19.10.2011, whereby the lease period has been reduced from 30 years to 23 years. The second part of the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench relates to the communication dated 20.07.2010, which is addressed by the opponents to the applicant. The communication dated 14.05.2010 addressed by the opponent to the applicant also includes a

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

map in form of a layout for bus stand at Saputara. The said communication has been received along with the map by the applicant and the same bears signature of the applicant having received the same on 14.05.2010 (Reference page 163-165 of the application).

13. The map indicates that the proposed land for public rest house admeasuring 500 sq.mtrs. is behind the land wherein it is mentioned land for Information Department admeasuring 1873 sq. mtrs. The map further indicates that the land for Information Department admeasuring 1873 sq. mtrs. abuts on traffic circle road to Navagam and the land for Rest House is behind the same. The map further indicates that on the other side, the bus station exists and thereafter a 9 meter road is provided for access to the land proposed for public rest house admeasuring 500 sq. meters. It also appears from the record that the applicant was addressed a letter dated 11.11.2010 for execution of lease deed within a period of three days.

14. The record indicates that the judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 passed in SCA No. 8624 of 2012 came to be challenged before the Apex Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33460 of 2014, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order -

"We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. We find no merit in this special Leave Petition, which is disposed

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

of accordingly. However, with the consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent, all the Orders and References to payment of Exemplary costs are set aside."

15. Thereafter, the Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) No. 3424 of 2014 came to be disposed of on 05.02.2015 wherein this Hon'ble Court passed the following order-

"Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Hemang M. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 states that the map shown at page No.77, the extreme corner of land ad measuring 500 Sq. meters is already alloted and lease deed will be executed. The period of lease will be counted as per the letter dated 18/19.10.2011 and it will be open to the corporation to extend the period further as per the tender conditions.

In view of the matter, the present application stands disposed of. Notice is discharged"

Hence, as far as the opponents are concerned, they are bound to execute a lease deed as per the directions issued by this Court, confirmed by the Apex Court and subsequent statement made before this Court in the contempt application.

16. The record indicates that the allotment of land which is asked for is based on tender and as observed hereinabove, the offer given by the applicant came to be accepted by the ST Corporation by its communication dated 14.05.2010 along with which a map was also attached, which has been received as can be seen from the record of this application. (Page 163-

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

165)

17. It is an admitted position that since 2009, the issue is pending for actual and physical allotment of land in favour of the applicant. It would not be out of place to refer to the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ petition being SCA No. 8624 of 2012, which clearly indicates that attempts were made by this Court to resolve the issue. However, the same could not be resolved and ultimately, on merits, this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and issue directions as can be seen from para 11 of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 passed in SCA No. 8624 of 2012.

18. This Court, considering the fact that the issue is pending since 2010, passed the following order on 19.03.2021 in the present application -

"1. Heard Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rasesh H. Parikh , learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the opponents.

2. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record a photocopy of the Rojkam as well as a photocopy of rough sketch which is part of the Rojkam. The same is taken on record.

3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court is not inclined to grant six weeks'

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

time as prayed for in further affidavit dated 4.3.2021. The Division Bench of this Court as earliest on 5.8.2014, while allowing the Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No. 8624 of 2012 filed by the applicant has observed thus :-

"11. In the premises aforesaid, petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to comply with the order dated 19.10.2011 forthwith. The communication dated 20.07.2010 addressed by the respondent no. 3 shall be complied with accordingly. The petitioner shall be paid the actual cost incurred by him during the entire process by the respondent Corporation by way of costs. The respondent Corporation shall act in accordance with law and allow the petitioner to resume work at the place allotted as per the tender after the lease deed is executed."

4. Record indicates that thereafter, the applicant file a contempt application being Misc. Civil Application (for Contempt) no. 3425 of 2014, wherein the Division Bench has passed the following order :-

"Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Hemang M. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 states that the map shown at page No.77, the extreme corner of land ad measuring 500 Sq. meters is already alloted and lease deed will be executed. The period of lease will be counted as per the letter dated 18/19.10.2011 and it will be open to the corporation to extend the period further as per the tender conditions.

In view of the matter, the present application stands disposed of. Notice is discharged"

5. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the opponent have also drawn attention of this Court to the order

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the opponent challenging the said order. Thus, as far as the direction for allotment of land is concerned, the same is concluded by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Rojkam indicates that till the opponents are examining 3 different alternatives which, in Prima facie opinion of this Court, is against the orders passed by this court in Special Civil Application no. 8624 of 2012 dated 5.8.2014. Still however, in order to see that some decision is taken as per the orders which have become final, as a last chance, S.O. to 1.4.2021."

19. The further affidavit dated 30.03.2021 does indicate that the opponents examined three options. However, at the time of hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the opponent that what was offered in the tender and what was offered in the sketch vide communication dated 14.05.2010 to the applicant is the land as per the map as annexed with the said communication and the same is option no.1. The efforts therefore made by this Court were not fruitful and hence, the matter was heard on merits.

20. Having examined the record in toto and the directions issued by this Court in SCA No. 8624 of 2012, which has become final as well as the statement made on behalf of the opponents in MCA No. 3424 of 2014, the opponents are bound by the same and hence, the opponents are required to

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

execute a lease deed as per the communication dated 14.05.2010.

21. It may be noted that though the application is styled as application for direction/ clarification, this Court is conscious of the fact that is has very limited jurisdiction. At the same time, only because the permissions are required, it is the bounden duty of the opponents as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution to obtain such permission and give physical, actual and clear possession of the lands allotted to the applicant by way of lease on applicant complying with the same and more particularly executing a lease deed. It is no doubt true that this Court cannot in its limited jurisdiction direct the opponents to allot any other land in peculiar facts and circumstances arising in this application, we still feel that it was the duty of the opponents to steer clear ad clarify the land which was available for allotment and development for the guest house without going into the aspect that the delay is caused because of which factors. We reiterate the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition, more particularly paragraph 11 thereof.

22. Only because the authorities approached the Government for formal approval for Survey No. 15 would not in any manner change the location of the land which was put to auction and which has

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

been allotted to the applicant and therefore, the applicant would not be entitled to any other land than the land which was earmarked and allotted as mentioned hereinabove. Furthermore, it deserves to be noted that the nature of land would not in any manner change the land which was to be leased out to the applicant as it is clear from the map that land was earmarked along with 9 meter road.

23. In view of the above, the following directions are given -

(I) The opponents are directed to comply with the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in para no.11 of the order dated 05.08.2014 passed in SCA No.8624 of 2012. As mentioned hereinabove, the opponents shall

meter approach road as per the map at page 165 and of the paper book of this application, which corresponds with page 77 of the proceedings of Misc. Civil Application (for Contempt) no.3424/14. The opponent ST Corporation shall obtain necessary permission from the Government.

(II) The opponents shall send a draft lease deed to be executed by the applicant, within a period of one month from the date of this order.

(III) The opponents shall allot forthwith 500

C/SCA/8624/2012 IA ORDER DATED: 11/06/2021

sq. mtrs. of land to the applicant for construction of the Rest House at Saputara Bus Station as per the aforesaid directions.

24. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of this order on condition that the applicant shall cooperate with the opponents for execution of the lease deed.

25. As far as the prayer prayed for direction to allot survey no.15/B is concerned, the same is rejected. As far as prayer prayed in para 13(D) is concerned, the opponents shall adjust the amount of earnest money of Rs. 3,50,000/- and annual lease rent of Rs. 13,32,228/- duly paid by the applicant on 19.05.2010 and 08.062010 respectively by adjusting the same. As far as interest is concerned, no order are passed. Application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J)

(A.G.URAIZEE, J) BIJOY B. PILLAI