Madhya Pradesh High Court
J. K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
1 WP-17426-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
WRIT PETITION No. 17426 of 2010
J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravish Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Sankalp Kochar -
Advocate and Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh - Advocate General with Shri - Amit Seth -
Government Advocate for State.
Reserved on 20/02/2025
Passed on 29/05/2025
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India making a prayer to issue a writ for quashing of
order dated 22.02.2008 and 19.09.2010 contained in Annexure-P/21
and Annexure-P/22.
2. Vide order dated 22.02.2008 Upper Secretary, Government
of Madhya Pradesh, Revenue Department informed Collector and
also petitioner company to surrender the land which was leased to
petitioner company thereafter, Government will consider proposal to
change the land use. By another letter dated 10.09.2010 Tehsildar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
2 WP-17426-2010
Nazul Urban Bhopal wrote a letter to authorized officer of petitioner
company to surrender of land by 15.09.2010. Thereafter, show cause
notice was issued on 19.10.2012 to explain why petitioner company
may not be evicted from lease land since petitioner company has
committed violation of Section 182(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code
(lease land is being used for other purposes contrary to lease deed
and there is violation of conditions No.9, 13 and 17). Prayer was
further made to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to
permit the use of lease property for commercial, educational and
recreational purposes in accordance with master plan dated
22.10.2003 and restrain respondents from taking possession of land
in question. Further prayer is made for quashing of Annexure-P/24
though copy of said order has not been permitted before this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted
that Nawab of Bhopal through industries department granted lease of
20.31 acres of land on 20.09.1938 for period of 30 years i.e. for
04.05.1939 to 03.05.1969 to petitioner company. Lease was granted
for establishment of card board factory. Factory was established in
year 1938. Government of Madhya Pradesh renew the lease on
20.08.1971 for period of 99 years i.e. from 04.05.1969 to
03.05.2068. It is submitted that company was granted another land
by lease for period 15.01.1971 to 14.01.2070. Lease was for area
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
3 WP-17426-2010
5.52 acres. Petitioner company is having subsisting lease for total
land measuring 25.83 acres. It is submitted that company invested
huge amount for development of infrastructure over an area of about
one lac sq.ft. Factory was far away from township area but with
passage of time factory came within township area. Name of
company i.e. Straw Products Limited was change first to J.K.
Corporation Limited thereafter to J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited as
per provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. Master plan was
announced for Bhopal in year 1995. Petitioner was informed vide
letter dated 06.09.2002 that land use has been changed to
commercial, residential and for recreational purpose. Another letter
was addressed to petitioner company and company was not allowed
to operate factory as master plan became effective and Pollution
Control Board also raised objection on factory operations. Petitioner
applied for permission to close the factory. Petitioner company was
granted permission to close down the factory vide order dated
30.09.2002 of State Government, Department of Labour. Factory
was closed on 09.11.2002. Now petitioner company sent a proposal
to State Government for use of land for commercial, residential and
recreational purposes according to master plan. Detailed proposal
was sent later on 30.05.2003. State Government sent a letter on
22.10.2003 to petitioner agreeing change of land use to commercial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
4 WP-17426-2010
and educational purpose on adding interest of 12% per annum
additional on value of land. Petitioner company agreed to proposal
of State Government and made payment of premium as suggested in
letter dated 22.10.2003. Contract was concluded between petitioner
company and State of Madhya Pradesh. Meanwhile, Collector issued
letter dated 25.11.2002 for cancellation of lease. Petitioner filed civil
suit before Trial Court to set aside the order of Collector. Lease of
5.2 acres of land was cancelled vide order dated 05.01.2004.
Petitioner challenged the said order before Commissioner and also
filed an appeal against decision in respect of 20.31 acres of land.
Commissioner allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to
Collector with direction to take final decision in this regard within
period of three months. Interim orders were passed in civil suit on
12.09.2006. During pendency of civil suits, Commissioner has set
aside the order passed by Collector, therefore, civil suit was
withdraw. Collector wrote a letter to seek advice of State
Government over the issue since another matter of lease in respect of
20.31 acres of petitioner company is pending before State
Government. On 20.02.2008 Revenue Department issued aforesaid
impugned letters contained in Annexures-P/20, P/21, P/22 and
P/22A. Meanwhile, petitioner filed this writ petition before High
Court and interim order was passed in favour of petitioner on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
5 WP-17426-2010
08.12.2010 directing status quo in respect of possession over land in
question. Said stay was continued from time to time. Despite interim
orders being passed by High Court, respondents want to take
possession of land in question, therefore, petitioner was forced to file
contempt petition No.1844/2012 before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner further
submitted that lease was granted for period of 99 years and same is
subsisting and no breach of terms and conditions of lease was
committed by petitioner as lease was subsisting, therefore, there was
no justification to call upon petitioner to surrender the land first and
only thereafter, application for change of land use may be considered
by State Government. Factory of Petitioner was closed without any
fault on his part. Factory come in middle of town, therefore,
Pollution Control Board did not grant NOC for running of factory
and further land use was also changed by Department of T & C in
scheme of 1995. Petitioner was force to shut the factory, it cannot be
said that petitioner has violated the conditions of lease. Petitioner has
filed application in accordance with master plan to change the land
use. Conditions put forth by State Government to surrender the land,
thereafter, decisions to be taken is arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that tacit approval has
been given by the state government to change the land use on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
6 WP-17426-2010
payment of charges. In view of same, there was concluded contract
between petitioner and respondents. Petitioner has also deposited the
charges, therefore, there was no cause survived and there was no
reason to take contrary decision by the State Government issuing
direction to surrender the land and issue letters contained in
Annexure-P/21, P/22 and P/22A. Action of respondent is unfair and
contrary to equity further Article 300A of Constitution of India is
also violated by respondents. It is further submitted by learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioner that lease is perpetual in nature and
same is subsisting. No action has been taken by the state government
for cancellation of lease in accordance with under Section 111 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In these circumstances, prayer is
made to quash orders contained in Annexure P/21 and P/22 and also
to quash P/24 dated 19.10.2012 and to issue restraint orders
regarding dispossession of petitioner and permit petitioner to use the
land for commercial, educational and recreational purpose.
Annexure-P/24 is a show cause notice issued to petitioner under
Section 182(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code for eviction
of petitioner from land in question due to violation of conditions.
5. Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that
lease granted to petitioner was cancelled and another writ petition
No.20092/2015 was filed challenging the order passed by Industrial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
7 WP-17426-2010
Department cancelling the lease of petitioner. At present no lease is
existing in favour of petitioner. It is also submitted that Collector has
not passed any order contrary to interim orders passed by the Court
by issuing notice to petitioner company. Petitioner company was not
to be dispossessed but only formalities were being completed by
Collector in issuing said show cause notice due to subsequent
development. Appeal against cancellation of lease has been decided
by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015 granting liberty to State to
proceed in the manner in accordance with law.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Orders contained in Annexure P-21 and Annexure P-22
passed by State Government & Tehsildar and order dated
19/10/2012 contained in Annexure P-24 is under challenged in this
Writ Petition. By order dated 22/02/2008 Upper Secretary,
Government of M.P., Revenue Department has directed for
surrendering the land before considering application for change of
land use. Lease in favour of petitioner is subsisting and valid,
therefore, there was no requirement for surrendering the land before
considering the application of petitioner for change of land use. No
reasoning has been given in said order why surrender of land is
required before considering application for change of land use. It has
also not been stated in the order that lease rent has not been paid by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
8 WP-17426-2010
petitioner. Neither it has been stated that any conditions of lease has
been violated or lease deed has been cancelled, therefore, surrender
of land is required. Order is arbitrary in nature and violative of rights
of petitioners. Petitioner is having subsisting lease and cannot be
asked to surrender the lease unless there is condition of surrender of
land or reentry of State Government on violation of conditions in
lease deed. No such violation of condition has been pointed out in
the impugned order dated 22/02/2008, therefore, order dated
22/02/2008 is arbitrary without reasoning. Order dated 22/02/2008 is
quashed.
8. Annexure P-22 is a letter which has been addressed to
authorized officer of J.K. Lakshmi Cement, Bhopal directing
petitioner to surrender the land by 15/09/2010. Said letter has been
issued as consequences of order dated 22/02/2008. Since order dated
22/02/2008 is quashed, therefore, consequential order passed by
Tehsildar also falls to the ground and said order is also quashed.
9. Annexure P-24 is show cause notice issued to petitioner
seeking explanation why lease granted to petitioner may not be
cancelled in violation of conditions mentioned in lease deed i.e. 9,
13 & 17 and re-entry be made over the land of petitioner. No
occasion arises in examining show cause notice to petitioner as lease
granted to petitioner has already been cancelled and same is under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25207
9 WP-17426-2010
challenged in another Writ Petition, therefore, relief as prayed for
quashing show cause notice dated 19/10/2012 has become
infructuous.
10. With the aforesaid direction, Writ Petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
V. JUDGE
ss/as
