1 2025:CGHC:1976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(C) No. 2069 of 2010 • Chidambra Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., A company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, Through- Its Director- Santosh Agrawal, Aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri R.D. Agrawal, R/o 33 Dunga Ji Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Durg (C.G.) 3. Nazul Officer, Durg (C.G.) 4. Punjab National Bank, A body Corporate, constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at- 7 Ekhaji Commercial Place, New Delhi inter alia Branch office at – Kingsway, Nagpur, through- Its Branch Manger- Kingsway, Nagpur (M.S.) 5. The Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company Ltd., A company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, Through- Secretary, having its registered office at 317/21, Prospects Chambers, Dr. Dada Bhai 5, Nauroji Road, Fort, Mumbai (MS) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Annu Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Kumar Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Other Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 “10(I) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased direct the respondents concerned to produce before this Hon’ble Court the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by respondent No. 2 by which the lease deed has been cancelled and quash the same in the interest of justice. 10.(II) This Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the State Government to decide the application moved by the PNB regarding execution of the sale deed in favor of the petitioner. 10.(III) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 and direct to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10.(IV) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of the case. 10.(V) Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. A lease was granted in favour of respondent No. 5 vide order dated 05.10.1971. There was a breach of conditions of the lease agreement as provided under Section 182 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, notices were issued to respondent No. 5 to appear before the concerned Collector. The notice was served through paper publication and a copy of the notice was affixed at a conspicuous place of respondent No. 5. The authority concerned terminated the lease granted in favour of respondent No. 5. In between, respondent No. 5 and the petitioner entered into the sale agreement dated 30.11.2004 and this fact was also not brought to the notice of the revenue authorities. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was not a party to the lease agreement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, who got the possession of the 3 leased property pursuant to an agreement entered into between respondent No. 5 and the petitioner on 30.11.2004, therefore, the order of termination of the lease agreement is bad-in-law. She would pray to quash the order dated 19.04.2010. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived. He would further submit that the lease was never granted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to afford an opportunity of hearing. He would further submit that there was a breach of conditions of the lease agreement as provided under Section 182 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, therefore, the authority concerned rightly terminated the lease agreement. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the lease agreement was entered into between the State and respondent No. 5 on 01.11.1966, 09.09.1968 and 05.10.1971. There were allegations with regard to the breach of conditions of the lease agreement, therefore, various notices were issued to respondent No. 5 to appear before the respondent authorities. The notice was also issued through paper publication, but respondent No. 5 failed to appear, therefore, the concerned Collector vide order dated 19.04.2010 terminated the lease agreement entered into between respondent No. 5 and the State. Respondent No. 5 entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner on 30.11.2004 and as stated by the petitioner, the possession was also handed over, but these facts were not brought to the notice of the State Authorities, therefore, there was no occasion for the revenue 4 authorities to issue notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The lease agreement was never transferred in favour of the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti