STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JEEWAN & SONS, SIROHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 29.08.1990 passed by District Judge, Sirohi, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 seeking specific performance of contract, permanent prohibitory injunction and possession has been decreed in a manner, whereby, the appellant has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,95,500/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of judgment.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 6, inter alia, with the averments that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Erstwhile State of Sirohi on 11.08.1944; the agreement stipulated for grant of licence of land admeasuring 75 Bigha for 30 years; the plaintiff was entitled to exploit mineral, construct factory for manufacturing glass, office building and staff quarters, no rent was chargeable, however, the plaintiff would pay royalty on the mineral excavated, if the licence was terminated by the State before the stipulated period, the land leased for factory, building etc. would revert to the State and if State desires, it may purchase the factory, buildings, super structures and machinery on a fair valuation to be mutually settled and agreed amount, in case the State did not want to purchase, the licencee would be at liberty to remove the plant and machinery and super structures or to sell it to anybody else, who is bona fide resident of State; plaintiff was at liberty to purchase the land from the State, on which, the buildings were standing not exceeding 75 Bigha @ Rs.150/- per bigha; in the year 1949 the administration of the former Sirohi State was taken over by the Government of India vide Sirohi Merger Agreement dated 08.11.1948 and the Government of Bombay took over the administration on behalf of the Central Government; the Government of Bombay vide its letter dated 17.09.1955 terminated the licence for excavation of minerals and directed the plaintiff to apply for fresh licence under the Mineral Concession Rules and as regard sale of 75 Bigha land, it was stated that the request may be considered on payment of value of the land under the relevant Rules; the State Reorganization Act, 1956 was promulgated and territories of Abu and Abu Road came to be transferred to the State of Rajasthan; the Collector, Sirohi was ordered to take the possession of the land in question from the plaintiff as the lease had been terminated by the State of Bombay, treating the plaintiff as trespasser; the plaintiff moved to the State of Rajasthan for purchase of land as per conditions of the agreement; the State passed a order restraining the Collector, Sirohi from taking possession of the land from the plaintff, which order was later on cancelled; the land in question was leased by the Collector, Sirohi for industrial development and was handed over to the Rajasthan Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited ('RIICO'), who further allotted the land to defendant Nos. 2 to 5; the State of Rajasthan kept silence over the application made by plaintiff and did not take any step to sell the land in question to the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit for specific performance of the contract as per the agreement was filed seeking possession of the land in question from defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and seeking prohibitory injunction against the appellant claiming that the plaintiff was in possession of a portion of the land in question.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant No.1 accepting the execution of the agreement and contending that as the Government of Bombay terminated the licence in the year 1955, the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the contract; the allegations about plaintiff being in possession of the land were denied and it was submitted that the land had been taken over by the Collector and allotted to various persons for the purpose of establishing industries and they have raised super structures and have started production; plea regarding deficient court fees, the suit being barred by limitation etc. were also raised.