Hope Textiles Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 9148 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hope Textiles Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 26301


                                                                  -1-                            WA-2651-2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                             AT INDORE

                                                              BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                          &
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
                                               ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                                WRIT APPEAL No. 2651 of 2025

                                          HOPE TEXTILES LIMITED AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                          Appearance:
                                Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri
                          Abhinav Malhotra and Shri Pranjal Kalantri - Advocate for the appellants.
                                Shri    Anand    Soni    -    Additional   Advocate    General    for    the
                          respondents/State.


                                                             JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the writ Court whereby the Writ Petition No. 35080 of 2025 has been dismissed at the admission stage with liberty for resorting to the remedy of appeal available under the law.

3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the Collector, District Indore, in

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 26301

-2- WA-2651-2025

exercise of powers conferred under Section 182 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959, cancelling the lease of 99 years in favour of the writ petitioner.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 The appellant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, and the appellant No.2 is the Director and shareholder of the company. By SICCA Order No. 3248/F dated 02.09.1939, a Mill consisting of building, land and machinery was sold by the Holkar Government to the predecessor of appellant no.1, M/s. Nandlal Bhandari & Sons for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. By the same order, the 22 acres of the land of the mill were also given on lease for a period of 99 years for the purpose for which it was used till then. According to the appellants, there has been no default in payment of the lease land. M/s Nandlal Bhandari Mills subsequently changed into M/s Hope Textiles Limited, i.e. appellant No.1. The mill was constructed over 8 acres of land, and the remaining land was kept open and available for other development works.

Vide letter dated 14.11.1967, the State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Survey & Settlement Department, gave permission to the appellants to sub-lease portions of the 22 acres of land of Unit No.2 for industrial purposes. The appellant company continuously made representations to the Government seeking permission for the development of surplus land for commercial and residential purposes.

4.2 Meanwhile, the appellant No.1 company was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) constituted under the Sick Industrial Companies Act. Meanwhile, the State Government came up with a new Policy Package for the revival of sick industries. The appellant submitted an application under the Policy Package dated 29.06.1988 for the revival of the company. In the meantime, vide publication dated 14.08.1996, the State

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 26301

-3- WA-2651-2025

Government, after following the due procedure under Section 23(A) of the M.P.Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, changed the land use of the 22.24 acres of the land of the Unit No.2 for commercial purposes.

4.3 The State Government also constituted a Land Sale Committee (LSC) headed by the Revenue Commissioner, Indore Division, and consisting of Nominees of BIFR, IDBI, State Bank of Indore, Joint Director (Industries), and the representative of the appellants. Vide order dated 12.01.1998, the State Government informed the BIFR that the State Government had decided to accept the scheme to be approved by the BIFR. Vide order dated 02.05.1998, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh had changed the land use from 'industrial' to 'commercial', thereby permitting the appellants to sub-lease the land of Unit No.2 for commercial purposes. According to the appellants, the development was planned in two phases. The first phase, consisting of 10.31 acres of the land, has been approved by the Joint Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Indore vide order dated 03.12.2002. Thereafter, the Nazul Officer granted the requisite NOC for the development of the land on 04.03.2003, followed by permission from the Indore Municipal Corporation dated 04.08.2003. The Collector was also part of the said meeting and was aware of all the developments from the year 2005 to 2012. The Land Sale Committee granted permission regarding the disposal of land in favor of M/s Gemini Construction Co. Ltd. and M/s Jabalpur Motors Ltd., and no objection regarding the violation of the lease condition was raised by the Collector.

5. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that the writ Court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition without appreciating the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand. All these aforesaid issues are liable to be decided by the High Court, for which the remedy of appeal may not be efficacious and effective. Learned Senior

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 26301

-4- WA-2651-2025

Counsel further submits that the learned Collector did not consider the history, especially the orders passed by the learned BIFR in Case No. 198/87 and the Minutes of the Meeting of the Land Sale Committee. Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that the order dated 11.06.1982 and 17.06.1982 had already been cancelled by the Government under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. The appellant No.1 company is no longer a sick company and is out of the purview of SICA and BIFR. All these issues cannot be raised before the Commissioner, who was the Chairman of the Land Sale Committee constituted by the State for appellant's company. These issues are liable to be decided by the High Court after the filing of a reply by the respondent-State. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the writ Court for adjudication on merit.

6. Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent, opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the learned Collector has duly examined the reply filed by the appellant to the show-cause notice and passed a reasoned and detailed order which is appealable before the Commissioner. The money received by the appellants after implementing the revival scheme has not been utilized in the revival of the Mill, hence the purpose for which the land was given on lease is liable to be taken back by the Government by cancelling the lease.

7. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the appellant has not challenged the authority of the Collector who has passed the impugned order under Section 181 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959, in respect of cancellation of the lease deed. Earlier, the order of the Collector dated 03.10.2012 was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9766 of 2012 because the same was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. Now,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 26301

-5- WA-2651-2025

such ground is not available to the appellants to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Appreciations and Conclusion

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the issues raised by the appellants require consideration by this Court, looking to the checkered history of this case. The effect of the orders passed by the BIFR, orders of the State Government under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, as well as the M.P.Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, and the decision taken by the Land Sale Committee are liable to be considered while appreciating the findings on the allegation of breach of conditions of lease. The Collector and Commissioner were Members of the Land Sale Committee. The State Government has, from time to time, passed the aforesaid orders for change of use of the land. Is there a time limit fixed for the implementation of the order of BIFR for the revival of the industry of appellant No.1? All these issues are liable to be decided by the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the writ Court is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition No. 35080 of 2025 is restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

                                   (VIVEK RUSIA)                                (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
                                      JUDGE                                           JUDGE
                          vidya