Subhash Chandra Chaudhari & Ors. Vs. Ram Milan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.694 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16176 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8654 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16176 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8654 of 1995)
Petitioner: Subhash Chandra Chaudhari & Ors.
Respondent: Ram Milan & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.694 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16176 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8654 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16176 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8654 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 1997
Appearances:
Anis Ahmed Khan and W.A. Nomani, Advocates for the Appellants.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Senior Advocate R.C. Verma, R.B. Misra and Anil Kumar Gupta-II, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONTRACT ACT
Lease granted for one year cancelled and thirty parties had already intervened to excavate sand – Held though there is merit in appellant’s contention for being allowed to complete the residue period, yet the third party rights having intervened, no directions can be given in absence of third parties – Respondents directed to refund the deposit – Appeal dismissed.
Held:
Though there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the working of the period of the lease granted to the appellants was not allowed to be fully utilised on account of the orders passed by the courts or the Commissioner, the time may be extended for the appellants to execute the lease and work out the lease for the residue period, as stated earlier, since the third party rights have already been intervened, in their absence we cannot give the direction as sought for. Under these circumstances, it is stated in the affidavit itself that the respondent-Government have offered refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed by the High Court. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,30,000/-. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
92. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated May 24, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.8654/95.
3. The admitted position is that though lease was granted to the appellants on December 5, 1994 for one year and was executed, as admitted by the respondents, on the said date, it expired on December 5, 1995. It is contended that the lease granted to the appellants was cancelled by the Commissioner on February 17, 1995 and on a revision filed by the appellants to the State Government, by order dated March 23, 1995, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. But unfortunately the operation of the order of the Government was stayed by the High Court on May 21, 1995 and it set aside the order of the Government by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction of the High Court the auctions were conducted and third parties have been inducted to work out the excavation of the sand; but they are not before us. Though there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the working of the period of the lease granted to the appellants was not allowed to be fully utilised on account of the orders passed by the courts or the Commissioner, the time may be extended for the appellants to execute the lease and work out the lease for the residue period, as stated earlier, since the third party rights have already been intervened, in their absence we cannot give the direction as sought for. Under these circumstances, it is stated in the affidavit itself that the respondent-Government have offered refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed by the High Court. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,30,000/-.
4. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
92. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated May 24, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.8654/95.
3. The admitted position is that though lease was granted to the appellants on December 5, 1994 for one year and was executed, as admitted by the respondents, on the said date, it expired on December 5, 1995. It is contended that the lease granted to the appellants was cancelled by the Commissioner on February 17, 1995 and on a revision filed by the appellants to the State Government, by order dated March 23, 1995, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. But unfortunately the operation of the order of the Government was stayed by the High Court on May 21, 1995 and it set aside the order of the Government by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction of the High Court the auctions were conducted and third parties have been inducted to work out the excavation of the sand; but they are not before us. Though there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the working of the period of the lease granted to the appellants was not allowed to be fully utilised on account of the orders passed by the courts or the Commissioner, the time may be extended for the appellants to execute the lease and work out the lease for the residue period, as stated earlier, since the third party rights have already been intervened, in their absence we cannot give the direction as sought for. Under these circumstances, it is stated in the affidavit itself that the respondent-Government have offered refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed by the High Court. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,30,000/-.
4. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs.
