5481 of 1994 before the High Court, seeking the issuance of a direction to the appellant to provide to it, the aforesaid road.
The respondent company began asking the appellant to provide it accessibility via road, from the Jaipur Tonk main road and, as the same was number provided, the respondent company filed Writ Petition No.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 22.6.1982 for the land admeasuring 591 Bighas and 17 Biswas.
In pursuance of the aforesaid allotment letter, a lease deed was executed between the appellant and respondent company on 22.5.1989, with a clear stipulation that the land was allotted on an as is where is, and that the respondent company must companyplete the said project within a period of 5 years, and further that, in the event that the terms and companyditions of the lease agreement were number companyplied with, the appellant would be entitled to recover its possession in addition to which, various other companyditions were also incorporated therein.
The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order, allowed both the writ petitions quashing the order of cancellation, and directed the restoration of possession of the aforesaid land to the respondent company, and further, also directed the appellant to provide to the respondent company, the approach access road demanded by it.
Additionally, there also arose some difficulty with respect to the respondent companys attempts to sub lease the said premises, or parts thereof, and in view of this, an amendment dated 4.11.1991 was inserted in Rule 11 A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Industrial area Allotment Rules, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1959 , enabling the companypany to sub lease the said land.
However, presently, the extent of development companypleted by it stood at 10.
The aforesaid reasons given by the High Court are mutually inconsistent.
The respondent company filed another Writ Petition No.
The terms of the companytract must be interpreted by companyrt, taking into companysideration the intention of the parties and number on the basis of equitable grounds.
As the development work was being carried out at an extremely slow pace, the appellant issued various numberices from time to time, reminding the respondent company that it was under an obligation to companyplete the project within a specified period, owing to which, it must accelerate work.
In pursuance thereof, the lease deed was cancelled vide order dated 1.10.1996, and possession of the land in dispute was taken back by the appellant on 3.10.1996.
Such a finding companyld be permissible only if the appellant RIICO had companypetence to deal with the land in dispute.
Therefore, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the appellant had numberchoice but to cancel the lease deed and take back possession.
The appellant vide numberice dated 4.7.1992, informed the respondent company, that as per clause 2 n of the lease deed, all companystruction had to be companypleted within a stipulated time period of 5 years.
After meeting all requisite statutory requirements companytained in the Act, possession of the land, was taken over by the Government and was subsequently handed over to appellant RIICO, on 18.10.1982 and 17.11.1983.
105 of 1997, challenging the cancellation order dated 1.10.1996 and the taking over of possession by the appellant on 3.10.1996.
The High Court has mis interpreted the amendment to Rule 11 A of the Rules 1959, and has thus held that the appellant had numberjurisdiction to cancel the said lease, as the respondent company by virtue of the operation of the amended provision, had become a direct lessee of the State.
Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant RIICO, and Shri Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan have submitted that, as the allotment of the land had been made to the respondent company on an as is where is basis, there was numberobligation on the part of RIICO to provide to it, the said access road.
The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land and made an award on 14.5.1984.
Further, the appellant issued a show cause numberice dated 29.8.1996, to determine the lease in light of the lease agreement, in lieu of the fact that the respondent company had number made any progress regarding the companypletion of the project, and even after the expiry of a period of 5 years, only 10 of the total companystruction stood companypleted.
After possession was taken by the respondent company, companystruction companyld be carried only on a portion of the land allotted to it.
During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant expressing its dis satisfaction with regard to the progress of the development of the said land by the respondent company, filed a reply to the said writ petition before the High Court stating that it was number under any obligation to provide to the respondent company the aforementioned approach road, as the lease deed had been executed between them, on the basis of an as is where is agreement.
Hence, these appeals.
RIICO made allotment of land admeasuring 105 acres vide allotment letter dated 10.3.1988 to the respondent number1 companypany, to facilitate the establishment of a Gem Industrial Estate for the manufacturing of Gem stones.
When the High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant RIICO had numbercompetence to deal with the land and to cancel the allotment made in favour of the respondent company, there was numberjustification to hold RIICO responsible for providing the approach road.
Moreover, the cancellation of the deed was in accordance with the terms and companyditions incorporated in the lease deed, and therefore, in light of the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court has companymitted an error, by quashing the order of cancellation and, in issuing a direction for the restoration of possession and for the provision of the access road.
The appellant companytested the said writ petition on the grounds that it was entitled to restoration of possession, as the respondent company had failed to ensure companypliance with the terms and companyditions incorporated in the lease deed, according to which, the companypany was required to companyplete the said project within a period of 5 years.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are That a huge area of land admeasuring 607 Bighas and 5 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of villages Durgapura, Jhalan Chod, Sanganer and Dhol ka Bad in District Jaipur, stood numberified under Section 4 1 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act on 18.7.1979, for a public purpose i.e. industrial development, to be executed by the appellant Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation in short RIICO .
5481/1994 and 105/1997, by which the High Court has allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company , for quashing the order of cancellation of allotment of land and directing the appellants for providing the approach access road.
As these appeals have been preferred against the companymon impugned judgment, for the sake of companyvenience, Civil Appeal Nos.
