1999 (7) TMI 698 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the restraint order issued by the Collector, Morena.
2. Legality of the review order passed by the Board of Revenue under section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
3. Whether the lease granted by the State of M.P. through the Industries Department could be nullified by the exercise of review powers.
4. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Restraint Order Issued by the Collector, Morena:
The Collector, Morena, issued a restraint order on 27-8-1991, preventing the petitioner-respondent from raising any construction over the disputed land. This action was taken following an objection by the Housing Board regarding the transfer of the land to the Industries Department. The learned Single Judge quashed this order, noting that the petitioner had already been granted a lease and had made substantial investments based on the lease. The restraint order was deemed unsupportable in law as it was issued after the petitioner had incurred significant expenses.

2. Legality of the Review Order Passed by the Board of Revenue Under Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code:
The Board of Revenue granted permission to review the Collector's order dated 27-7-1991, which transferred the land to the Industries Department and altered revenue records. The learned Single Judge found that the review was sought after an unreasonable delay and emphasized that the power of review must be exercised within a reasonable time. The review order was quashed, with the court drawing support from the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat vs. P. Raghav, which held that even if no time limit is prescribed, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time.

3. Whether the Lease Granted by the State of M.P. Through the Industries Department Could Be Nullified by the Exercise of Review Powers:
The learned Single Judge concluded that a valid lease granted under the M.P. Land Revenue Code could not be set aside on grounds other than those specified in section 182 of the Code. The exercise of review powers to nullify the lease was deemed a contravention of the lessee's rights. The court noted that the petitioner had obtained possession, paid the premium, and made initial expenditures for setting up a factory, and the belated exercise of review powers was unjustifiable.

4. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeals, arguing that they were against an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court, however, noted that the writ petition was filed under Article 226/227, and the learned Single Judge exercised jurisdiction under both articles. The court cited various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Umaji Keshao Meshram vs. Smt. Radhika Bai, which held that when a petition is filed under both articles, it should be treated as being under Article 226 to preserve the right of appeal. The appeals were deemed maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the learned Single Judge's decision to quash the restraint order and the review order. The court emphasized that the lease granted to the petitioner could not be nullified through the exercise of review powers, and any dispute related to the lease should be resolved through arbitration as stipulated in the lease deed. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.