On 06.03.2007, the respondent Company made an application for grant of NOC before the Nazul Officer, Bhopal, for raising companymercial and residential companystructions on the leased land without paying the lease rent of Rs.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the respondent Company alleging that though the Nazul Officer passed an order, has number granted NOC and disposed of the same number in accordance with the Circular of the State Government, filed a Contempt Petition C 173 of 2009 before the High Court.
1 has violated the terms and companyditions of the lease and exceeded the scope and purpose of the lease by raising companystructions on the leased land without prior approval or permission of the State Government, the Additional Collector, Bhopal, on 03.05.1982, issued a show cause numberice asking the respondent to explain as to why the lease number to be determined.
Appeal No.
This numberification empowers the Nazul Officer to examine the question of ownership of the land on which the companystruction has to be raised.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition No.
15400 of 2007 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Nazul Officer to decide the application for grant of NOC pending before him.
On 25.02.2008, the Tehsildar issued advertisement in the newspapers inviting objections against granting of NOC to the respondent Company for change of use of leased land.
Being aggrieved by the final order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide its letter dated 19.01.2007, directed the Collector, Bhopal that where the use of leased land is changed, then the rent on such leased land shall be re assessed as per the rules and regulations.
In companypliance of the said order, the Nazul Officer, Bhopal, asked for certain documents and sought information from the respondent Company to decide the application.
The Arbitrator, by his award dated 03.07.1985, held that there is numberprohibition in the lease deed that respondent No.
Questioning the said order, the State of Madhya Pradesh has also filed SLP C 35732 of 2009.
5469 of 2008 setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer rejecting the application moved by the Respondent Nerbudda Valley Refrigerated Products Company Pvt.
The Joint Director, Town Country Planning, Bhopal sanctioned the plan for 3 years for residential, companymercial development on the leased land presented by the respondent.
Since both the orders of the High Court relate to the same issue, these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.
One Aziz Udeen, Partner M s Chandan Mal Looks Co. had registered his objection against granting NOC to the respondent Company on the ground that there is a dispute between the respondent and his companypany regarding the land for which the respondent is seeking NOC and Civil Suit No.
166 of 1988 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court upheld the award passed by the Arbitrator on 03.07.1985.
503 of 2006 is already pending before the Civil Judge.
5467 of 2008 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide its letter dated 04.05.1999, permitted the respondent Company to change the use of leased land from industrial purpose to companymercial or residential purpose on payment of lease rent, as payable on the land used or changed for companymercial or residential purpose, as per the companymercial rate assessed according to the rules and regulations and also directed the Collector, District Bhopal, to recover the said rent as per the rules and regulations.
30,41,10,240/ assessed as per rules and regulations on the change of use of leased land to companymercial and residential purpose.
In view of the dispute between the parties, the issue was referred to Arbitration as per clause 12 of the lease deed dated 14.03.1939 for amicable settlement.
Pursuant to the said order of the High Court, the appellant State renewed the lease deed for 3.82 acres of land for a period of 30 years companymencing from 1969 to 1999 in favour of the respondent.
After hearing the parties, the Nazul Officer, by order dated 15.04.2008, rejected the application for grant of NOC.
1 would number raise companystructions to develop industry, trade and companymerce.
Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
In the said writ petition, the State had taken the preliminary objection that the writ petition is number maintainable as alternative remedy was available to the respondent under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular.
Heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastav, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
15400 of 2007, the High Court directed the Nazul Officer Appropriate Authority to take a decision on the application of the respondent Company for grant of NOC.
Again, the Nazul Officer asked certain documents and sought for information from the respondent Company and after hearing the respondent the Nazul Officer, by order dated 02.02.2009, rejected the application for grant of NOC.
In spite of the said objection, by order dated 26.09.2008, the High Court directed the respondent Company to submit the documents and information sought for by the Nazul Officer and also directed the Nazul Officer to decide the application of the respondent for grant of NOC by passing a speaking order.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide numberification dated 14.02.1966, instructed the Nazul Officer to examine the question of ownership of the land as per rules and regulations so that the Government land companyld number be encroached at the time of companystruction of the building.
The State of Madhya Pradesh as early as on 14.03.1939 executed the lease of 12 acres of land in favour of the respondent Company for a term of 30 years from 14.03.1939 to 13.03.1969 for the purpose of developing trade in refrigerated food stuffs and industries at the ground rent of Rs.
As Respondent No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
By order dated 20.03.2008, in Writ Petition No.
The issues which arise for companysideration in these appeals are Whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer in a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to respondent number 1 to challenge the said order before the Collector as per Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular?
Questioning the said order, the respondent preferred Contempt Petition C No.
The said award was challenged by the appellant State in Misc.
In the same order, the High Court directed the Nazul Officer to companysider only the circular dated 14.02.1966 and the Arbitration Award while deciding the application for NOC.
The appellant State again renewed the lease deed for 3.13 acres of land for 30 years from 14.03.1999 to 13.03.2029 in favour of the respondent Company.
Vide letter dated 16.01.2004, the appellant State permitted the respondent Company to change the use of leased land from industrial purpose to companymercial and residential purpose on payment of lease rent as assessed as per the rules and regulations.
Whether the High Court is justified in directing the Nazul Officer to present personally to explain his misconduct?
The respondent Company failed to submit those documents and information sought for despite several reminders.
1/ per acre per annum for the first 30 years of the lease.
By order dated 13.10.2009, the High Court after finding that the Nazul Officer has dealt with the matter beyond the Circular dated 14.02.1966 of the State Government and number followed its earlier order, directed him to personally present before the Court on 27.10.2009 to explain his misconduct in passing such order.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company for the grant of No Objection Certificate NOC to raise companystructions on the leased land after changing the land use from industrial purpose to companymercial purpose, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
