Madras High Court directs BPCL is to vacate the subject Government land within 1 month.
Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
Decided On: September 19, 2023.
W.P.No.20312 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.25096 of 2020.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam.
Facts:
The Government issued G.O. on 03.02.1978 and ordered to lease out an extent of 0.21 6/16 acres (or) 21.375 cents of the Government land in Udhagai Taluk, Nilgiris District in favour of M/s. N.N Naidu & Sons for the period from 17.07.1967 to 13.06.1978 with the condition that the lease will not be renewed after 30.06.1978. Accordingly, the Government had ordered for resumption of the subject land on 01.07.1978. The Government had ordered for leasing out the subject land to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, for a period of 13 years from 15.05.1981 to 14.05.1994. On expiry of the lease period, the lease was renewed for a further period of 9 years from 15.05.1994 to 14.05.2003. The lessee BPCL had not remitted the lease amount to the Government and action was initiated under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by the Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam against the lessee.
The present case, the lease period expired as early as 14.05.2003 and in view of pendency of W.P.No.13012 of 2007, filed by M/s.N.N. Naidu and Sons (Dealer of BPCL) and interim stay granted thereon, further renewal of lease could not be made. While dismissing the writ petition on 08.08.2019, the Hon’ble High Court has pointed out that M/S. N.N.Naidu & Sons has no locus standi to challenge the demand notice issued by the Tahsildar, as they were not party to the notice. The petitioner’s Company having known the above fact, allowed the dealer to contest the case unnecessarily for the past 13 years and failed in the legal forum, now has come forward to negotiate with the administration for the fixation of the fair lease rent.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
In the present case, the petitioner lessee is neither paying the lease rent nor is vacating the Government land so as to put the land for any kind of public interest. the Government issued orders for collection of lease rent at 7% of land cost inclusive of additional surcharge and 14% of land cost inclusive of additional surcharge for non commercial purpose and commercial purposes respectively, in respect of the leases in the Municipal areas and Corporation limits. Based on the said Government Order, the lease rent at the rate of 14% of the land cost is worked out as lease rent and the petitioner has not challenged the Government Order having accepted the renewal of lease and fixation of lease rent as ordered by the Government. The petitioner company has to abide by the terms and conditions. The petitioner company having agreed to the terms and conditions laid down by the Government and the District Administration, Nilgiris District, is obligated to comply with the same. The penal rent at the rate of 12% of the lease rent per annum was also imposed by way of the condition which was agreed by the petitioner company.
The petitioner company is in unauthorised occupation of the valuable Government land. Adjacent to the petitioner company, there are other petrol bunks which are run by other petroleum corporations. Thus, resumption of land would not cause any public inconvenience in that locality. The petitioner is a chronic defaulter in payment of lease rent and they have continuously committed default in payment of the rent. The petitioner BPCL, being a commercial organization and running petrol bunk for profit, is not entitled to claim any leniency either from the Government of Tamil Nadu or from the hands of this Court. The petitioner is selling petroleum products and making profit without paying lease rent to the Government of Tamil Nadu resulted in monetary loss to the state exchequer. As rightly pointed out that Udhagamandalam is a hilly area where 45% of the area is covered by forest, the District Administration finds it difficult to identify lands for public purposes.
The court passed the following orders:
- The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition stands rejected.
- The petitioner BPCL is directed to vacate the subject Government land within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to hand over vacant possession to the District Administration of Nilgiris District.
- In the event of failure to vacate the premises within a month, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to evict the petitioner and resume the Government land immediately on expiry of the 1month period.
- The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to recover the arrears of lease rent and other charges as admissible under law by following the procedures as contemplated.
Conclusion:
Since the petitioners has not established any acceptable grounds for the purpose of considering their case for grant of relief. The court directed BPCL to vacate the land and handover the possession to District Administration of Nilgiris District within 1 month.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.