1 2025:CGHC:8795-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 132 of 2025 R.P. Sharma S/o Late Shri Binda Prasad Aged About 59 Years R/o Jai Prakash Narayan Smarak Pratisthan Ruabandha, H.S. C.L. Colony Bhilai, District- Durg ( C.G. ). ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Steel Authority of India Through- Secretary, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 2. Bhilai Steel Plant Through- Chief OfÏcer Town Administrator Bhilai Distt- Durg ( C.G. ). ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.20 17:38:51 +0530 2 in WPC No. 355 of 2012 (R.P. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a lease pertaining to the area admeasuring 4000 sq.ft. situated at HSCL Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai (C.G.) was allotted to the appellant and a lease agreement was entered into between the appellant and Steel Authority of India, Bhilai Steel Plant on 13.02.1998. The plot was allotted in the name of ‘Pratishthan’ for specific socio-cultural purposes with specific terms and conditions. It is also stated in the agreement that violation of the stipulations in the lease agreement would lead to cancellation of the agreement. The appellant was a Patron of Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Pratima Sthapana Samiti and a proposal was submitted by the appellant himself for allotment of the said land. The appellant was also permitted to install a statue of ‘Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan’ at the junction of Sector II and Sector VI at six-tree Avenue of Bhilai Township. The appellant got constructed ofÏce-cum-hall over the allotted land measuring 4000 sq.ft. The statue of ‘Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan’ was installed in the year 1991. The appellant moved an application for allotment of 2670 sq.ft. of land which is adjacent to the allotted land and such an application was moved before the respondent authorities on 25.09.1993 and 23.11.1995. The appellant constructed a boundary wall and kachha construction over that land. The show-cause notices were issued to the appellant on 09.05.2011, 12.08.2011, 26.09.2011 & 18.11.2011 to remove the encroachment from the area of 2670 sq.ft. of land which was never allotted to the appellant. The appellant failed to 3 remove the encroachment from the area of 2670 sq.ft. of land. Thereafter, vide order dated 20-25/01/2012, a decision of termination of the lease was taken pursuant to clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 which states that in the event of the lessee encroaching the land of the lessor or unauthorizedly occupying any premises of the lessor adjacent to the premises allotted to the lessee or elsewhere, the lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease and call upon the lessee to handover the vacant possession of the allotted land/plot of the lessor and vacate the unauthorized occupation/encroachment within one month from the date of notice of termination of lease. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had challenged the order dated 20/25.01.2012, whereby the lease deed in favor of the appellant was cancelled. In 1987, the appellant, serving as the patron of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Smarak Pratima Sthapana Samiti, corresponded with Bhilai Steel Plant authorities to install a statue of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan. The proposal was accepted, and the appellant was granted permission to install the statue at the designated site in Bhilai Township while ensuring its security. He also submits that in 1991, the appellant sought permission to construct an ofÏce-hall at open land in Ruabandha, Bhilai. Permission was granted by Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, and the appellant constructed the facility as per the approved plan. The ofÏce has been operational since its construction, with electricity and taxes managed without disputes. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the initial permission for the ofÏce-hall was temporary, the appellant repeatedly sought renewal and permanent authorization. 4 Despite the lack of response from authorities, the appellant continued to possess and use the land. The appellant later became president of the Jai Prakash Narayan Smarak Pratisthan Samiti, registered in 1992. He would submits that in 1998, the Estate Manager of Bhilai Steel Plant leased an adjacent 4000 sq. ft. land to the Samiti for socio-cultural purposes. Thereafter, in 2011, the authorities raised issues over unpaid electricity bills and alleged encroachment of 2670 sq. ft. of land. The appellant paid part of the dues as directed, but faced rejection of post-dated cheques. The authorities accused the appellant of encroachment and issued eviction notices, which the appellant contested, citing earlier permissions and deeming the allegations baseless. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant actively involved in social and political activities, accused the authorities of acting with malafide intent due to his vocal stance against corruption and alleged irregularities in Bhilai Steel Plant. Representations to clarify the encroachment allegations and highlight procedural lapses were made, but the authorities canceled the lease in January 2012. He further states that the appellant approached this Court via a writ petition bearing WPC No.355 of 2025. On dated 13.012025, the learned Single Judge passed an impugned order and partly allowed the petition. The learned Single Judge quashed the 2012 lease cancellation for the 4000 sq. ft. land due to procedural delays, but upheld the encroachment finding for the 2670 sq. ft. The appellant was directed to vacate the encroached area within seven days. The learned Single Judge emphasized the authorities’ obligation to provide a hearing before taking further action and allowed them to proceed against the appellant only if conditions of the lease were violated. 5 The appellant was granted partial relief, but instructed to comply with the order regarding the encroachment. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has enclosed all the documentary evidence and clearly discloses that he had the possession of the premises after due permission, construction was as per approved plan of the respondents, NOC was granted for electric connection, ground rent and service charges are paid electric bills are taken and thereafter, without any justification the respondent authorities are cancelling the lease deed stating that there is some encroachment. The action of respondent authorities is high handedness filled with mischief and ill-legal hence liable to be set aside. He also contended that the impugned order directs the appellant to vacate the encroached land within a period of seven days, failing which the respondent authorities may forcibly remove the encroachment. Such a short duration is manifestly unreasonable and fails to take into account the logistical challenges and procedural requirements for vacating and handing over possession of the premises. A reasonable period must be provided to ensure proper compliance. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was not afforded adequate time to respondent to the allegations of personal use of the adjacent land, despite claims that the area was used for socio-cultural purposes. The impugned order overlooks this and directs the appellant to vacate the premises without thorough consideration of the appellant’s argument. He further submits that the appellant has been using the leased property for socio-cultural purposes since 1991. The sudden and severe consequences of termination without 6 allowing adequate time for remedial actions, such as vacating the alleged encroachment, violate equitable principles. The learned Single Judge should hae considered granting relief consistent with the longstanding history of the lease. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.01.2025 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He would contend that a lease was granted to the appellant for the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. of land for socio-cultural activities. He would further contend that the appellant encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land without any authority of law. He would also contend that moving an application for the grant of the lease cannot be treated as the grant of the lease. He further submits that the appellant ought to have waited till his application was either rejected or allowed by the respondent authorities and thereafter, he should have taken action accordingly. He would also submit that the lease deed which was executed between the parties particularly, clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 specifically states that if the appellant encroaches over any adjacent land, it may be one of the grounds for termination of the lease agreement. He would argue that the respondent authorities after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant took a decision to terminate the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. He also stated that the appellant encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land and is still using 7 that portion for his personal use and also keeping cattle. It is also contended that the appellant’s family about seven in number is using the said property for their personal use and the premises are not being used for socio-cultural activities. He would state that the annual return submitted by the appellant to the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Raipur (C.G.) under Section 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 for the year 1992 to 1996 are almost identical and no subsequent returns after the year 1998 were filed. Therefore, the respondent authorities rightly terminated the lease agreement. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. In the present case, the lease was granted in favour of the appellant on 13.02.1998 of the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. of land for socio-cultural activities. A statue of ‘Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan’ was also installed near the area measuring 4000 sq.ft. Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 reads as under: “Clause-6 In the event of lessee encroaching the land of lessor or unauthorizedly occupying any premises of the lessor adjacent to the premises allotted to the lessee or elsewhere, the lessor shall have the right to terminate this lease and call upon the lessee to handover the vacant possession of the allotted land/plot of the lessor and vacate the unauthorized occupation/encroachment within one month from the date of notice of termination of lease.” 8 12. An application was moved by the appellant before the respondent authorities for allotment of an adjacent land area measuring 2670 sq.ft. on 25.09.1993 and 23.11.1995. The application remained pending and no decision was taken by the respondent authorities. However, the appellant erected a fencing wall and started using that part of the land without the prior permission of the respondent authorities. 13. A perusal of the notice issued by the respondent authorities would reveal that the appellant used the area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land contrary to Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 and also defaulted in payment of electricity bills, etc. Thereafter, the appellant filed a reply to the show-cause notices and stated that the electricity bills and other dues have already been paid to the respondent authorities. It was also stated in the reply that an application was moved for allotment of an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land, but no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities till date. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a breach of Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. The authority concerned terminated the lease agreement vide order dated 20- 25.01.2012. 14. A perusal of the documents and the photographs placed on record by the respondent authorities (in the writ petition) would show that the appellant has encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land which has not been allotted to the appellant. Vide lease agreement dated 13.02.1998, only 4000 sq.ft. of land was allotted to the appellant for socio- cultural activities. The photographs submitted by the respondent authorities would show that the appellant used an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. of land for personal use. Though the application was moved by the 9 appellant for the grant of lease, but that application was not considered and no decision was taken and it would amount to deemed rejection of the application moved by the appellant. Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998 which deals with the breach or encroachment over the unauthorized use of adjacent land etc. or premises would lead to termination of the lease agreement by exercising power and under this clause, the respondent authorities terminated the lease agreement. 15. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that as the application moved by the appellant remained pending for a considerable period and no decision was taken, the termination of the lease agreement of 4000 sq.ft. of land appears to be erroneous and thus, the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 20-25/01/2012 is hereby quashed. The appellant encroached over an area measuring 2670 sq.ft. without any authority and he has rightly been treated as an encroacher for that part of the land. The photographs show that the appellant has encroached and the property has been used for personal use, therefore, the appellant is directed to vacate the premises within a period of seven days from today. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to remove the encroachment if the appellant fails to vacate the premises within a period of seven days. 16. Learned Single Judge also held that the respondent authorities would also be at liberty to take appropriate steps if the appellant violates any of the conditions of the lease agreement dated 13.02.1998. It is made clear that no action shall be taken against the appellant without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 10 17. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan