M/s. Saptagiri Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Electronics Dev. Corpn. Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8198 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) 18549/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) 18549/2000)
Petitioner: M/s. Saptagiri Enterprises P. Ltd.
Respondent: Karnataka State Electronics Dev. Corpn. Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8198 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) 18549/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) 18549/2000)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 29, 2001
Head Note:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Administrative actions – Compliance with the principles of natural justice – Land allotment by government agency for setting up industrial units – Appellant, a lessee of a plot of land from the respondent corporation allotted to it in 1995 – In 1999, respondent corporation cancelling the lease on the ground that the land fell within the green belt area – Cancellation without issuing any notice to the appellant lessee – Legality of cancellation. Held, unilateral cancellation without issuing a show cause notice to the lessee and affording an opportunity of being heard, being contrary to the principles of natural justice, not valid and therefore, the cancellation order not sustainable. Corporation directed to issue a show cause notice within three months if the respondent corporation proposed to pursue the cancellation.
Held:
Inasmuch as the appellant was allotted lease as long back as in 1995 and it is said to have invested certain amount on improvement of the allotted site, if the allotment was sought to be cancelled on the ground that it fell within green belt area, so the allotment should not have been made, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have served a show cause notice on it before taking the action of cancellation of the lease. This admittedly was not done. Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed the impugned order of cancellation. For the above reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court as also the order of the cancellation of the lease. We leave it open to the respondent to issue a show cause notice to the appellant as to why the allotment of land made in its favour should not be cancelled, duly mentioning the reasons therefor, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders, on considering the explanation of the appellant, if any, filed within the time granted, in accordance with law. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave is granted.
3. In our view this appeal can be disposed of on the short ground of non compliance with the principles of natural justice.
4. The appellant is a lessee of a plot of land which was allotted to it on May 19, 1995. On the ground that the said land fell within the green belt area, the respondent cancelled the lease on July 12, 1999. The appellant questioned that order in W.P. No .28429/99 in the High Court of Karnataka. The learned single judge of the High Court before whom the point of non compliance with the principle of natural justice was urged, having recorded the finding that the respondent had not issued any show cause notice for cancellation of the allotment of site, dismissed the writ petition on 15th December, 1999, on the ground that the allotted site fell in the green belt area was not disputed. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before a division bench of the High Court. Agreeing with the view of the learned single judge, the division bench dismissed the writ appeal on July 4, 2000, it is that order which is assailed in this appeal.
5. Inasmuch as the appellant was allotted lease as long back as in 1995 and it is said to have invested certain amount on improvement of the allotted site, if the allotment was sought to be cancelled on the ground that it fell within green belt area, so the allotment should not have been made, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have served a show cause notice on it before taking the action of cancellation of the lease. This admittedly was not done. Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed the impugned order of cancellation. For the above reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court as also the order of the cancellation of the lease. We leave it open to the respondent to issue a show cause notice to the appellant as to why the allotment of land made in its favour should not be cancelled duly mentioning the reasons therefor, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders, on considering the explanation of the appellant, if any, filed within the time granted, in accordance with law. If the respondent proposes to pursue the cancellation of allotment of land, the show cause notice should be issued within three months from today.
6. We, however, direct the appellant to maintain status quo of the land till final orders are passed by the respondent.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave is granted.
3. In our view this appeal can be disposed of on the short ground of non compliance with the principles of natural justice.
4. The appellant is a lessee of a plot of land which was allotted to it on May 19, 1995. On the ground that the said land fell within the green belt area, the respondent cancelled the lease on July 12, 1999. The appellant questioned that order in W.P. No .28429/99 in the High Court of Karnataka. The learned single judge of the High Court before whom the point of non compliance with the principle of natural justice was urged, having recorded the finding that the respondent had not issued any show cause notice for cancellation of the allotment of site, dismissed the writ petition on 15th December, 1999, on the ground that the allotted site fell in the green belt area was not disputed. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before a division bench of the High Court. Agreeing with the view of the learned single judge, the division bench dismissed the writ appeal on July 4, 2000, it is that order which is assailed in this appeal.
5. Inasmuch as the appellant was allotted lease as long back as in 1995 and it is said to have invested certain amount on improvement of the allotted site, if the allotment was sought to be cancelled on the ground that it fell within green belt area, so the allotment should not have been made, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have served a show cause notice on it before taking the action of cancellation of the lease. This admittedly was not done. Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed the impugned order of cancellation. For the above reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court as also the order of the cancellation of the lease. We leave it open to the respondent to issue a show cause notice to the appellant as to why the allotment of land made in its favour should not be cancelled duly mentioning the reasons therefor, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders, on considering the explanation of the appellant, if any, filed within the time granted, in accordance with law. If the respondent proposes to pursue the cancellation of allotment of land, the show cause notice should be issued within three months from today.
6. We, however, direct the appellant to maintain status quo of the land till final orders are passed by the respondent.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
