0

Madras High Court directs BPCL is to vacate the subject Government land within 1 month.

blog, Blog , , , ,

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.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court Directs the State to Verify Assets Declared By Police Officers, Confiscate Illegally Accumulated Wealth.

Blog, blog , ,

TITLE:  M.Rajendran and Ors Vs. The Secretary to Government and Ors. 

Decided On: July 12, 2023

W.P.No.6677 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2010

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam

Introduction:

It is an interesting case, where the Government employees / Police Officials between themselves raising the allegations of corruption against each other, to the huge extent. Thus, it is imminent for this Court to consider the state of affairs and the large scale corruption amongst the Public Servants visibly noticed in the public domain. Though the Constitutional Courts emphasised that the corruption will stall the developmental activities, there is no considerable improvement in the matter of controlling the corruption in our Great Nation. Thus, this Court has taken a little effort to emphasis and to create awareness with a fond hope that some steps will be taken to minimise the corruption, by all concerned.

Facts:

The first petitioner was a Government employee. The petitioners two and three purchased a property in Sriperumpudur Village through a Sale Deed dated 17.09.2009 vide Document No.6938 of 2009 from M/s.Sri Rama Sankara Sharma alias Rama Nivasha Chari and his brother Krishna Sharma. The old building in the said property was demolished during October 2009. Knowing the fact that the petitioners two and three purchased the property , the tenth respondent, who is an Advocate and the eleventh respondent, who was a Councillor of Kancheepuram Municipality and his brother demanded money from the petitioners. On 23.12.2009 at about 4:00 a.m., respondents seven, eight and ten came to the house of the petitioners. The seventh respondent / Sub-Inspector of Police informed the petitioners one and three that they should go to the District Crime Branch to answer the complaints made against them regarding the purchase of property. The first petitioner went to the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram with his son in their car. The seventh respondent was also got into the first petitioner’s car. Respondents eight and ten followed the petitioners in another car and came to the Police Station.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

Justice SM Subramaniam also directed the authorities to ensure that the procedure contemplated for confiscation of properties are adopted in all corruption cases and if necessary, interim attachments may also be made. The court also directed the Home Secretary and the DGP to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of DGP and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by providing separate telephone numbers enabling citizens to raise complaints and provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments. “The respondents one and two are directed to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of the Director General of Police and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-corruption by providing separate telephone numbers, mobile numbers/Whatsapp numbers enabling the citizens to register their complaints or provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments and instrumentalities of the State,” the court said. The directions were made in a plea filed by M Rajendran, who was a Government Employee and against whom action initiated on the allegation of accumulation of disproportionate wealth along with other persons. The court noted that Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department had also initiated proceedings but the same were dropped. Though the plea was filed to quash the criminal proceedings against him and others, the court noted that the trial had already commenced and thus, the prayer as sought for could not be granted. However, the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case. The court also noted that even though Rajendran had made specific allegation of corruption against some of the officers, the same was not properly enquired into by the Home Secretary, DGP or the Superintendent of Police. The court observed that even though it was possible that bald allegations are made by the accused, if such allegations were made with specific incidents including date, time, amount given to the police etc, the higher officials could not close their eyes and an enquiry was warranted to cull out the truth and take actions if necessary.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court has directed the Secretary to Government (Home Department) and the Director General of Police to verify the mandatory declarations given by the police officials as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, and take all appropriate actions in case of any discrepancies.

“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.

Click here to view Judgement

0

The Government has to protect the property in the interest of public Says Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:  Agri-Horticultural Society             … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                  The State of Tamil Nadu Ors                          … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 21.06.2023.

                              Pronounced On 04.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM. 

Citation:  WP No.17612 of 2023 and WMP Nos.16694 to 16697 of 2023.

Introduction:

The writ petitioner is the Agri-Horticultural Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioner-Society states that originally the Society had lands granted by the East India Company  British Government, as well as, lands purchased out of its own funds through Private Negotiation, 1836 onwards. Certain portions of land were leased out to the Society by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1912. The Society’s gardens, which are now claimed by the Government, are situated on the Northern side of Cathedral Road. On the Northern side, apart from the Society’s private lands, and adjoining the same having Lloyds Road on its Northern Border is, another portion of land,
which is now Senganthal Poonga, a portion of land granted by the Government to the Society and now resumed. On the Southern side of Cathedral Road, lies Semmozhi Poonga, which comprises the land, originally leased out and later granted to the Society. Within the portion now occupied on Semmozhi Poonga, lies private lands of the Society are also, originally identified as OS Nos.3411 and 3062, Mylapore Village, which essentially makes it four tracks of land. The Government attempted to resume the subject property in the year 1960. The petitioner filed WP No.469 of 1962 and eventually the matter entered into a settlement between the Society and the Government of Tamil Nadu and the question of ownership of the land in possession of the Society was left open. The Government re-granted portion of the land in the year 1980. Subsequently, there was no dispute for several years.

Legal Analysis:
Regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, the facts as established in the present writ petition would reveal that the disputed issues regarding title is to be adjudicated before the Competent Civil Court of Law. The power of Judicial Review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to ensure the processes through which the decision taken by the Competent Authorities whether in consonance with the provisions of the Statute and the Rules, but not the decision itself. Thus the scope of the present writ petition cannot be expanded for adjudicating the disputed issues regarding title with ownership or otherwise. However the power of the Government to resume the land belonging to the Government under the relevant Statute and Board Standing Orders need not be interfered with by the Court ordinarily. A person claiming title over the property has to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for establishing his title.

In the present case, the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration in exercise of his powers under the Revenue Standing Order for initiation of suo motu revision proceedings. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings and this Court has elaborately considered all grounds raised by the petitioner, including the grounds relating to mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, political vendetta etc. All grounds were elaborately adjudicated by this Court, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court  and subsequently by the Apex Court of India.

Res Judicata:

Principles of res judicata as defined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to Writ Petitions also as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements. In view of the same, the plea of mala fide and political vendetta, is settled and nullified. The petitioner is estopped from stating the same time and again and the said
averments have to be rejected as per the principles of Res Judicata.

Judgement:

The factum established, the petitioner has deemed to have exhausted his right to re-canvass the said grounds once again before this Court, which were elaborately adjudicated. Even then this Court has independently considered the grounds and the legal positions once again and does not find any reason for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner. The additional grounds raised by the petitioner is also untenable. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the Commissioner of Land Administration categorically considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and made a finding in unambiguous terms. The Commissioner of Land Administration has stated that the petitioner-Society has been in enjoyment of highly valuable lands belonging to the Government, without remittance of any nominal amount whatsoever to the Government for several decades. Serious infringement of the rights of the public at large has been rightly taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Land Administration. In the event of abuse of Government land by any private individuals, the right of public at large is violated and in such circumstances, the Government is duty bound to resume the land and recover the lease rent by following the procedures as contemplated. Thus the Commissioner of Land Administration has not committed any error in issuing a direction to recover the interim lease rent from the petitioner Society and directing the District Collector to calculate the final lease rent and recover the same by following the procedures. The petitioner-Society is in possession of the Government land for several decades and therefore they are liable to pay the minimum lease rent as calculated by the Authorities in the interest of public and to protect the State revenue, which is the constitutional obligation on the part of the Government. The factum established in the present writ petition would be sufficient enough to arrive an inevitable conclusion that the petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal right to occupy the land belonging to the Government.

Conclusion:

The subject land has already been resumed by the Government and the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops is in possession of the Government land as of now. Thus the Government has to protect the property in the interest of public and utilise the said land for the welfare of the public as they have stated in their affidavit filed in support
of the present writ petition.

“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.

Click here to view Judgement