MOHAMMAD AKRAM Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since said Kanchedilal had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner putting him in possession of the said plot and authorizing him to look after his interest on the said plot, the petitioner became a lawful holder of the lease on behalf of said Kanchedilal and, therefore, the possession of the petitioner cannot be treated as illegal nor he can be termed as an encroacher. In view of this, no action whatsoever could have been taken by Tehsildar, Sagar against the petitioner. It is thus contended that the petitioner is entitled to grant of relief claimed in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE order of interim relief contained in paragraph -(iii) makes it clear that the interim stay was only for a period of 30 days from the date of the order in case application was to be filed by said Kanchedilal. If the application was filed within 30 days then the status quo with respect to the possession over the land in dispute was to be maintained for a period of 90 days or till the decision of the application, whichever is earlier. Meaning thereby, the interim stay was only for a period of 90 days granted in favour of said Kanchedilal by this Court, in case he had filed an application for renewal of lease within 30 days from 13.12.2005. Nothing is indicated whether any such application for grant of renewal of lease was made by said Kanchedilal and whether such a lease was renewed in favour of said Kanchedilal. The lease document itself is not produced on record to show whether said Kanchedilal was competent to transfer the said lease by any settlement deed. Annexure P -1, the settlement deed, simply indicates that the petitioner was authorized to take all steps in the matter of payment of tax in respect of the lease and in the court proceedings, but the entire rights were transferred to the petitioner by said Kanchedilal as is subsequently mentioned in the settlement deed. Normally leases are not transferable in case a permanent lease is not granted with such a condition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was lawfully put in possession of the land in dispute. All applications, which have been filed by the petitioner alongwith this writ petition for renewal of lease indicate that the applications were made in the name of late Kanchedilal. No lease could be granted to a dead person. In case the petitioner was interested in obtaining any lease, he should have applied for the same in appropriate manner. He was required to demonstrate that transfer of the lease by Kanchedilal was done lawfully with the prior approval of the lease granting authority. Nothing is indicated in the writ petition in this respect. In the given circumstances, if the petitioner was treated as an encroacher and action was initiated against him, how can it be said that such an action was bad in law. However, if any such claim for grant of lease is made by the petitioner, it would be necessary for the respondents authorities to decide the same in accordance to the law. Presently, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents is not in accordance to law, in view of the fact recorded hereinabove. As such no relief, as claimed in the present writ petition, can be granted to the petitioner. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed without notice to the other side.