- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M.P Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit v. Indian Coffee Workers' Cooperative Society Ltd. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was originally sanctioned a lease for 47,297 sq ft of land out of Nazul Sheet No. 8, Plot No. 66, Huzur, Bhopal on 14-5-1985. Although the land was first designated for parking, its use was changed to “auditorium construction,” and an indenture of lease was executed on 17-12-1985. Possession was delivered in January 1986, but after the appellant failed to construct the auditorium in time, the Government resumed the land by order dated 29-7-1993.
Meanwhile, on 27-5-1986 the first respondent obtained a separate lease for 7153 sq ft from the same Nazul Sheet and Plot. That lease was cancelled on 25-6-1994, prompting the first respondent to file a writ petition on 27-6-1994; an interim stay of the cancellation was granted on 8-7-1994.
Upon the appellant’s representations, the State Government restored the appellant’s lease by letter dated 23-11-1994, reiterating the original area of 47,297 sq ft and imposing certain additional conditions.
The writ petition of the first respondent was allowed on 16-4-1999, resulting in directions to restore possession of 7153 sq ft to the first respondent. A subsequent review was allowed on 5-8-1999. The State filed LPA No. 283 of 1999 against those orders, and the appellant filed LPA No. 466 of 1999, asserting that the High Court’s orders affected its rights over the same land. Both appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 8-3-2000, leading to the present Supreme Court appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in directing the State Government to restore 7153 sq ft of land to the first respondent when the appellant claimed that the same land formed part of its earlier allotment.
- Whether the appellant, not being a party to the writ proceedings, was prejudicially affected so as to warrant interference with the High Court’s dismissal of its Letters Patent Appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct allotment of land that had already been allotted to the appellant in 1985 and restored in 1994.
- The appellant was a necessary party to the first respondent's writ petition; orders passed in its absence could not validly prejudice its rights.
- The Division Bench erred in dismissing the appellant’s Letters Patent Appeal without addressing these jurisdictional and procedural irregularities.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the State Government’s affidavit and an accompanying site plan. Both documents demonstrated that the appellant’s allotment of 47,297 sq ft was physically distinct from the 7153 sq ft allotted to the first respondent; the two parcels were merely adjoining. The lease schedule for the appellant’s land corroborated this separation by noting Indian Coffee House to the north of its plot.
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the figure “1.25 acres” appearing in clause 2 of the State’s letter dated 23-11-1994. On a plain reading, the letter affirmed only the earlier allotment of 47,297 sq ft, and the higher acreage reference was an admitted clerical mistake, as clarified in the State’s affidavit. The appellant could not exploit that clerical error to enlarge its entitlement.
Because the two plots were different and non-overlapping, the appellant’s property rights were unaffected by the High Court’s directions in favour of the first respondent. Consequently, the appellant lacked any legitimate grievance, and its appeals were found to be without merit.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED; no order as to costs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, leaving the first respondent entitled to its 7153 sq ft lease and the appellant confined to its original 47,297 sq ft. The decision resolves the dispute between these specific parties and turns on factual demarcation rather than new legal doctrine; it therefore sets no broader precedent beyond confirming that clerical errors in government correspondence cannot enlarge property rights.
S.N Variava, J.— Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. These appeals are against an order dated 8-3-2000 by which letters patent appeals filed by the appellant have been dismissed.
4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
On 14-5-1985, the appellant was sanctioned a lease of an area measuring 47,297 sq ft out of Nazul Sheet No. 8, Plot No. 66, Huzur, Bhopal. The said plot was to be used for cycle and motor parking. However, by a letter dated 30-5-1985, the user of the plot was changed to “auditorium construction”. Pursuant to this allotment, an indenture of lease dated 17-12-1985 was entered. The schedule of the property in the indenture of lease reads as follows:
“The Schedule Abovereferred To
North — plot of Indian Coffee House, south — building of Apex Bank, east — road, west — road.”
Thus the schedule shows that to the north of the plot, allotted to the appellant, was the plot belonging to Indian Coffee Board. Possession of 47,297 sq ft was handed over to the appellant in January 1986. As the auditorium was not constructed by the appellant within the time permitted the land was resumed by the Government by an order dated 29-7-1993.
5. On 27-5-1986, the 1st respondent was given a lease of land measuring 7153 sq ft. This was also out of Nazul Sheet No. 8, Plot No. 66, Huzur, Bhopal. This lease was cancelled by an order dated 25-6-1994. The 1st respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition on 27-6-1994. In that writ petition an interim order, staying cancellation, was passed on 8-7-1994.
6. In the meantime the appellant had made representations. Pursuant thereto the State Government agreed to hand back the land to the appellant. The relevant portion of the letter dated 23-11-1994 reads as follows:
“M.P State Coop. Bank, Bhopal was allotted 47,297 sq ft of land bearing Nazul Sheet No. 8, Plot No. 66 in the Capital Project Area by Order No. 6-183.Eight/79 dated 14-5-1985 of the Revenue Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh on general conditions by charging premium amount of Rs 6,66,887 and annual lease rent of Rs 50,016.59. By Order No. 6-52.Seven/S-2B/93 dated 29-7-1993 of the Department cancelling the allotment order dated 14-5-1985 of the said land, orders were passed to resume this land.
Now the State Government after full consideration cancelling Order No. 6-52.Seven/S-2B/93 dated 29-7-1993 and holding Order No. 6-183.Eight/79 dated 14-5-1985 as valid has decided that the balance amount of the premium amount of Rs 6,66,887 and lease rent amount of Rs 50,016.59 to be charged from the institution by the allotment order dated 14-5-1985 be got deposited according to the rules and the possession of the aforesaid land and the permission to construct the building on the terms prescribed earlier be given along with the following special terms:
1. That out of the land in question on the main road New Market, Roshanpura — MACT and the land of Apex Bank adjoining thereto abreast the alignment of the road, the Bank would have to return a 15-feet wide strip to the Government free of cost, which would be used for parking of the cars and the scooters. The fencing or any other construction on some part thereof shall be removed by the allottee at his own cost within 15 days of this order and shall have to hand over its possession to the Collector, Bhopal.
2. That on 1.25 acres of land in question M.P State Coop. Bank in the interest and for the use of the agriculturists complying with the rules of the Municipal Corporation, Urban and Rural Investment Department and other local bodies shall construct the auditorium and the library in such a way that the entire space in the basement and on the ground floor is reserved for car parking. The other construction would be made on the first floor and above that and at the same time in the present bank premises adequate space would be left and reserved for proper parking and other conveniences for the bank staff, persons visiting there and for the use of the general public. In the parking lot separate gates for entry and exit would be made in such a way that no hindrance is caused therefrom to the general traffic on any of the roads in the area.”
7. The writ petition filed by the 1st respondent was allowed on 16-4-1999. The State Government was directed to restore possession of 7153 sq ft to the 1st respondent. Thereafter when the 1st respondent applied for sanction of building plans, they were permitted to construct only up to 30% of the leased area. They therefore filed a review petition. This review petition came to be allowed on 5-8-1999. The State Government filed LPA No. 283 of 1999 against the orders dated 16-4-1999 and 5-8-1999.
8. The appellant also filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 1999 against the orders dated 16-4-1999 and 5-8-1999. The appellants claimed that they were not parties to the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent and that the said orders had affected their rights. The appellants claimed that the 7153 sq ft, directed to be given to the 1st respondent, was out of the land allotted to them by the State Government. Both the letters patent appeals came to be dismissed by the common judgment dated 8-3-2000.
9. Mr Sushil Kumar Jain submitted that the High Court could not have directed the State Government to allot land which has already been allotted to the appellant. He submitted that the allotment in favour of the appellant had been made as far back as 1985. He pointed out that though the land had been resumed in 1986, it had been restored in 1994. He submitted that the appellant was a necessary party to the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. He submitted that in the absence of the appellant, no order could have been passed which prejudicially affected their rights. Mr Jain submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
10. We see no substance in the submission made by Mr Jain. The State Government has filed an affidavit. They also annexed thereto a plan of the area. From the affidavit as well as the plan, it is clear that 47,297 sq ft allotted to the appellant is different from 7153 sq ft allotted to the 1st respondent. The two plots of land are adjoining pieces of land. The schedule to the lease deed of the appellant also shows that on the north side of the plot of land allotted to the appellant there is a plot allotted to Indian Coffee House.
11. Faced with this situation, Mr Jain submitted that what was reallotted to the appellant on 23-11-1994, was 1.25 acres viz. 54,450 sq ft. In support of this he relied upon clause 2 of the letter dated 23-11-1994 (which has been reproduced hereinabove). We are unable to accept this submission. The first part of the letter dated 23-11-1994 clearly states that 47,297 sq ft had been allotted earlier. By this letter the land earlier allotted to them is being regranted. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that 1.25 acres have been mentioned (in para 2) by mistake. The State Government in its affidavit has also clarified that the figure “1.25 acres” was mentioned by mistake. The appellant is trying to take advantage of this mistake in order to claim 54,450 sq ft of land when all that is allotted to them is 47,297 sq ft. They cannot be permitted to do so.
12. It is clear that the land allotted to the 1st respondent is different from the land allotted to the appellant. The appellant can thus have no grievance. There is no substance in these appeals. Accordingly the appeals stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Alert