GUJARAT STATE Vs. BH ANDHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of original defendants who are State of Gujarat, Collector, Mines and Minerals Department, Bhavnagar and the Mamlatdar, Bhavnagar against whom respondent No.1 herein -original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1267/83 for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff was granted lease for the purpose of excavating the black stones minerals from land bearing Survey No. 268/1 situated at Juna Vadava, Bhavnagar in the year 1959. It is further case of the plaintiff that because of the political interference, plaintiff was made to part with the land in favour of the defendant No.4 -Bhavnagar University and it was decided by the defendant no.2 -Collector to give 6 hector and 85 Are of the land from total land of 11 hector and 85 Are held by the plaintiff under the original lease and the plaintiff was permitted to hold on 4 hector 65 Are of land for the purpose of mining . Accordingly, fresh lease deed for the area of 4 hector and 65 Are was entered into between the plaintiff and State authorities on 16.12.73. It is further case of the plaintiff that because of surrender of land admeasuring 6 hector and 85 Are to the University, the petitioner became entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per day from 18.3.74 till filing of the suit. It is further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff was entitled for renewal of the lease for 30 years for which plaintiff was ready to pay necessary charges as per Government rates but renewal application was rejected without hearing plaintiff. The state authorities held meetings with university though land was not reserved for the purpose of university and on the basis of outcome of such meeting, the renewal was refused by order dated 14.12.83. Plaintiff was not been given time of 60 days for appeal which is required under the rule for the purpose of going in appeal. It is further alleged that there was no declaration for public purpose and it remained postponed . Plaintiff has been in possession of the land under the lease and the plaintiff is therefore, entitled to renewal of the lease. It is further case of the plaintiff that the order dated 14.12.83 refusing to renew the lease was illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and therefore, cause has arisen for plaintiff to file the suit. In the suit, plaintiff has made various prayers including prayers for declaration that plaintiff is entitled for renewal of the lease for the period of thirty years and the defendants have no right to cause any obstruction in plaintiff excavating the minerals and in plaintiff getting royalty passes and also prayed for compensation of Rs.46.00 lakhs which includes Rs.18,50,000/- on account of allotting the land in favour of the University and Rs.27,50,000/- for depriving the plaintiff to the property of the minerals.

(2.) SUIT of the plaintiff was resisted by the Defendants. Defendants-State Authorities contended that plaintiff had no indefeasible right of renewal. The Collector while considering the question of renewal has considered the aspect of public purpose and taken such decision on merits of the application. No illegality could be said to have been committed in refusing to renew the lease of the plaintiff . Defendant also took up various contentions including maintainability of the suit in Civil Court.

(3.) STATE of Gujarat and its authorities unsuccessfully carried the matter before the First Appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 117/ 93. Learned Appellate Judge though dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 1.6.94, however, slightly modified the order of learned Trial Judge whereby the order for allotment of alternative site to the plaintiff was set-aside . Plaintiff was also directed to pay the amount of court's fees on claim of Rs. 46.00 lakhs within one month from the date of order, failing which the suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be rejected (dismissed) under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is this judgment and decree First Appellate Court which is under challenge before this Court in this appeal.