PANWAN INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1-11-1961 the State of Uttar Pradesh executed a lease for a period of ten years in favour of petitioner's father Raminder Singh (who died in the year 1976) in respect of 100 acres of land situate in Lalpani, Barkat Range, Dehradun Forest Division (East) for the purposes of plantation of Rosha grass (a kind of weed used for distilling essential oil). This period of lease was to expire on 31-10-1971. About three years before the expiry of this lease i. e. on 5-6-1968 the State of U. P. respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Government) decided to extend the period of lease for another twenty years after 31-10-1971 on a condition that the Government had a right to enhance the rent by 50% after every five years, and the lessee deposited Rs. 32/- in the treasury as fee. This decision of the Government was contained in G. O. No. 1989/14-C 579/50-B dated 5-6-1968. This G. O. also required the concerned Conservator of Forest to submit a draft of the proposed revised lease deed in its terms. Neither any deposit seems to have been made by the petitioner's father nor any draft of the proposed revised deed was submitted to the Government. The decision of the Government remained in the G. O. itself and the Government never executed any revised lease in pursuance of this decision. The lease in favour of the petitioner's father expired on 31-10-1971. During this period, it appears, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the petitioners father had been misusing the lease by not using the land for the purpose for which it was leased to him and that he had sub-let a large tract of it in an unauthorised manner. The Divisional Forest Officer (East), Dehradun Forest Division thereupon gave a show-cause notice to the petitioner's father by means of his letter dated 11-4-1975. This letter was acknowledged by the petitioner's father by his letter dated 13-4-1975. It appears that consideration of these matters prevented the implementation of the decision contained iii the G. O. dated 5-6-1968. However, it appears that after considering the entire matter afresh, the Government issued another G. O. No. 3239/XIV- 11-574/50 dated 24-9-1975 (i. e. before expiry of the earlier lease on 31-10-1971 cancelling the G. O. No. 1989/14-C 579/50-8 dated 5-6-1968 whereby even the aforesaid decision for executing the lease for another period of twenty years also ceased to exist. This G. O. dated 24-9-1975, however, extended the lease only for four years with effect from 1-11-1971 i. e. upto 31-10-1975. Subsequently in October 1976, the Government took a decision to grant a fresh lease to the petitioner's father for an area of 27 acres of land only and accordingly issued a G. O. No. 6541/14-2-630/75 dated 15-10-1976. In this year the father of the petitioner also died. The petitioner, however, continued in possession of the entire land and no lease for 27 acres of land was executed as enjoined in the GO dated 15-10-1976. Consequently the Deputy Conservator of Forests Division (East), Dehradun, wrote the impugned letter No. 2411/3-1 dated 21-2-1978 to the Range Officer Barkot to take possession of the 73 acres of land out of 100 acres of land in possession of the petitioner contrary to the decision of the Government contained in the G. O. dated 15-10-1976. The petitioner then filed this petition for quashing this letter dated 21-2-1978.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have no right to disturb his possession over the entire 100 acres of land in question of which he is a tenant for twenty years under G. O. dated 5-6-1968. Even if the lease expired on 31-10-1975, the petitioner's father, and after him the petitioner, has been in possession of this land on payment of rent. Since the respondents had accepted the rent from the petitioner, he is a tenant of this land by holding over. Further, when the Government took a decision in 1968 to lease out this land for 20 years, the petitioner's father, relying on this decision, made heavy investment in modernising the distillation plant and also in consumption, sowing and growing of Rosha grass. The respondents are, therefore, estopped from reducing either the period of the lease or its area. IT is alleged that the area has been reduced to 27 acres by the respondents as they have declared the remaining area of 73 acres as surplus under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 although the provisions of this Act do not apply to this land. The act of the respondents is, therefore, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner was also entitled to an opportunity to show cause before the area of land under the lease was reduced.

(3.) FURTHER, it may be pointed out that on 5-6-1968 when this G. O. was issued by the Government the petitioner's father was already in possession of this land on the basis of a subsisting lease executed in the year 1961. This G. O. merely intended to extend the period of lease with effect from 1-11-1971 i. e. with effect from the date when his subsisting lease expired by means of another revised deed duly executed by the Government and after certain deposits having been made by the petitioner's father. This G. O. was never implemented. The possession of the land by the petitioner's father which was continuing from before 5-6-1968 was, therefore, not on the basis of this G. O. Therefore, even if the petitioner's father is assumed to have incurred any expenses on this land after 5-6-1968 but before 1971, he did so as a lessee of the land and not as a sequel to the G. O. dated 5-6-1968. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that such expenditure, if made, would mean an alteration of position of the petitioner's father as a result of the G. O. dated 5-6-1968. Consequently the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not attracted at all in this case.