LINGARAJ NANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application for leave to appeal is under Article 133 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's writ application was O. J. C. No. 813 of 1968.

(2.) THE facts of the writ application, bereft of all details, may be stated in short to appreciate the points in controversy. The petitioner is the proprietor of a local theatre known as Annapurna Theatre. Cm 18-9-1958 he applied to the government for lease of plot No. 723 situate in the City of Cuttack with an area of 0. 923 acre for the purpose of having a theatre at the place. The Collector and the revenue Divisional Commissioner recommended the lease in favour of the petitioner and negatived the claim of Shri Alekh Sahu (opposite party No. 6), the proprietor of Raj Tarangini Films, who had applied for lease of the same for locating a cinema. At one stage it appears to have been decided that the land would be settled by public auction. The petitioner alleged that while matters had not been finalised he was again asked by the Collector on 3-7-1963 to apply for lease of the land. On such an application being filed the Collector recommended that the lease be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. While matters thus stood, the State of Orissa (opposite party No. 1) sanctioned the lease in favour of opposite party No. 6 on 20th of January, 1968. The main terms of that impugned order sanctioning the lease (Annexure 8 to the writ application) run thus:--" X X X X X i am directed to say that after careful consideration of the applications received so far for lease of lands mentioned above and your recommendations in letter No. 3797 dated 23rd June, 1961, and No. 1228 dated 30th March, 1965, and No. 3247 dated 21st October, 1965 government are pleased to sanction the lease of Ac. O. 902 of land in plot No. 723 in Mouza Sutahat of Cuttack town in favour of Raj Tarangini films, Ranihat, for construction of an Air-conditioned Cinema house on payment of a premium of Rupees 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousands only) and an annual rent of Rs. 600/- subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) If the cinema is not constructed within a period of two years from the date of execution of the deed then the land shall revert to Government free from encumbrances. (b) The land shall be leased out for a period of 90 years. " X X X X X

(3.) A lease deed in the form prescribed under the Orissa Urban Land settlement Rules, 1959 shall be got executed with the authorised representative of Raj Tarangini Films, Ranihat, and registered at their cost. " the petitioner averred that the order sanctioning the lease was mala fide, arbitrary and for grossly inadequate consideration, and was passed without taking into consideration the claim of the petitioner. Despite serious objections and in the face of great public clamour the possession of the disputed land was delivered to opposite party No. 6 without any lease deed being executed. On these averments, the petitioner asked for the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ of mandamus prohibiting opposite parties 1 to 6 from executing any lease in favour of opposite party No. 6 in respect of the disputed land. (ii) Directing opposite parties 1 to 5 to cancel the impugned order dated 20-1- 68 granting lease of the disputed land in favour of opposite party no. 6; and (iii) To take immediate steps to deal with the pending lease applications in accordance with the provisions contained in the Orissa Urban Land settlement Rules, 1959 and Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder. The writ application was hotly contested and was ultimately dismissed by the judgment of this Court reported in ILR (1970) Cut 1318, Sadhu Charan Behera v. State of Orissa. 3. Mr. Rath for the petitioner contended that leave to appeal should be granted under all the three clauses of Article 133 of the Constitution which runs thus:--