JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner is a Government Company and is the successor of the Burmah Shel1 Company. It carries on business in storage and distribution of petroleum products in India. The Burmah Shell Company which was engaged in the storage and distribution of petroleum products in India was taken over by the Central Government by virtue of an Act called the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Acquisition of Undertakings Act"). Under a notification of the Government of India the right, title, interest and liabilities of the Burmah Shell were transferred in favour of the Burmah Shell Refineries which was a Government Company and the name of that Company was changed to Bharat Refineries Limited with effect from 12-2-1976. Subsequently on 1-8-1977, the Company was renamed as Bharat Petroleum Corporation. 2. Four hundred decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 2053/1 in mauza Badagada had been settled with late Banambar Patnaik by the State Government for the purpose of instal1ation of a petrol pump and the said settlement was for a period of thirty years with effect from 25-4-1950: it an annual rental of Rs. 40/-. The lease remained valid upto 24-4-1980. The area in which the land situates is earmarked under the Master Plan of Bhubaneswar as an institutional and utility area. Out of the said leasehold area, late Banabar Patnaik bad leased out 9,600 sq. ft. in favour of the erstwhile Burmah Shel1 Company on 20-6-1952 for a period of 28 years with effect from 1-11-1951, on a salami of Rs. 600/- and annual rent of Rs. 740/., the said lease had been executed after obtaining the permission of the lessor the State Government. Again on 12-2-1952 the said Banambar Patnaik had let out an additional space of 6,500 sqr.ft. in favour of the Burmah Shell Company for the period from 1 6-1956 to 31-10-1979 and this sublease had also been granted with prior permission of the State Government. Both these subleases expired on 31-10-1979. After the taking over of the Burmah Shell Company by the Government of India and formation of the new Company, the Petitioner continued to transact the business of storage and sale of petrol in the existing. Both these subleases expired on 31-10-1979. After the taking over of the Burmah Shell Company by the Government of India and formation of the new Company, the Petitioner continued to transact the business of storage and sale of petrol in the existing. place as under the Acquisition of Undertakings Act the Petitioner was entitled to continue the business under the same terms and conditions which the Burmah Shell Company was having. Originally one of the sons of late Banambar Patnaik, namely Shri Dinakrushna Patnaik, had been given the dealership to carryon the business of petrol but as he could not manage to continue the business he resigned and thereafter one N.A. Rai was appointed as the dealer. Banambar Patnaik died on 15-3-1965. After the expiry of the lease on 24-4-1980, the legal representatives of Banambar Patnaik made an application for renewal. After expiry of the Petitioner's sublease on 31-10-1979, the Petitioner also gave a notice to the legal representatives of late Banambar Patnaik to renew the sublease in. favour of the Petitioner as such a clause of renewal was there in the original sublease. when the legal heirs of the original lessee into Banambar Patnaik did not intimate the Petitioner on its application for renewal, the Petitioner directly applied to the State Government for allotment of the plot in its favour contending therein that the land in question having been set apart as institutional and utility area and the Petitioner having been declared as a public utility service, the land should be given to the Petitioner. On 24-11-1983 the State Government renewed the lease in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8 who are the legal heirs of late Banambar Patnaik on certain terms and conditions imposed on the lessee. One of the terms and conditions of the renewal was that the lessee should give first preference to sublease the parcel of land to Bharat Petroleum Corporation to run a petrol pump as per the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed between the parties within thirty days from the date of execution of the lease deed failing which the lease of the plot will automatically stand cancelled and the land will be reverted to the Government. The renewed lease was executed on 14-3-1985 in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8 for a period of 90 years commencing from 25-4-1980. The renewed lease was executed on 14-3-1985 in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8 for a period of 90 years commencing from 25-4-1980. As opposite parties 4 to 8 instead of complying with the terms and conditions contained in the renewal with regard to the grant of sublease to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation started threatening the dealer to blow up the pump and even though the Petitioner made a Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Orissa representation to the pirector of Estates (opposite party No. 3) to cancel the lease in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8, but that application was not disposed of, the Petitioner approached this Court with the prayer that opposite parties 1 to 3 may be directed not to give effect to the lease dated 14th of March, 1985 executed by them in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8 since the condition contained in the lease has not been respected by the said cpposite parties and also for a direction to opposite parties 4 to 8 to renew the sub-lease in favour of the Petitioner in view of Section 5(2) of the Acquisition of Undertakings Act. 3. Opposite "parties 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit stating therein that after the expiry of the term of the lease, the legal heirs of late Banambar Patnaik duly applied for renewal of the lease and the Government in exercise of their discretion have granted the fresh lease in favour of those legal representatives. The Petitioner being a sub-lessee under tne lessee canodt claim a right of renewal of the lease in its favour. However, while renewing the lease in favour of the legal heirs of Banatnbar Patnaik it has been clearly indicated that they should give first preference to Messrs Bharat Petroleum Corporation who have already established petrol pump on the plot of land and are running the same as per the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed to between both parties and, therefore, the said Bharat Petroleum Corporation could work out the remedies available to it. 4. On behalf of opposite parties 4 to 8 a counter affidavit has been filed. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that on the basis of sub-lease that had been granted to the Petitioner, it cannot claim any right over the land the period of sub-lease having expired. 4. On behalf of opposite parties 4 to 8 a counter affidavit has been filed. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that on the basis of sub-lease that had been granted to the Petitioner, it cannot claim any right over the land the period of sub-lease having expired. It has been averred in the said counter affidavit that the Petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and, at any rate, when severed have agreed to instal their machinery at a much higher terms and conditions it would not be equitable to permit the Petitioner to continue" its business on,the old terms of Rs 400/- as rent per annum. A letter dated 25th of March, 1984, from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation (the Petitioner) addressed to the legal representatives of late Banambar Patnaik has been annexed as Annexure-A and it has been clearly offered in the said letter by the Petitioner that the Petitioner is agreeable to take the area on sub-lease for a period of 20 years with effect from 1-4-1980 on a rental of Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1980 till 31st of March, 1984; at a rental of Rs. 2,000/- per month from 1-4-1984 till 31st of March, 1995 and at a rental of Rs. 2,250/- per month with effect from 1-4-1995 tiII 31st of March, 2000-1. 5. One Hemanta Kumar Patnaik, a co-sharer had filed an application to be impleaded as a party which was registered as Misc. Qise No. 188 of 1988 and that application was allowed vide order dated 28-3-1988. In view of our decision in O.J.C. No. 120 of 1988 (Hemanta Kumar Patnaik v. State of Orissa and Ors.) disposed of today holding that a co-sharer has no right, we are not in a position to allow the prayer of the said co-sharer represented by Mr. B.L.N. Swamy to the effect that he isentitied to be settled with the lease. The prayer of said Hemanta Kumar Patnaik is, therefore, rejected. 6. Another application was filed by one Prafulla Kumar Patnai, another co-sharer, for intervention. which was registered as Misc; Case No. 2529 of 1989 and it was directed that that application should be taken up along with the final hearing. Having heard Mr. N. Patra for the intending intervenor we are of the opinion that the application for intervention has no merit and the same is accordingly rejected. 7. which was registered as Misc; Case No. 2529 of 1989 and it was directed that that application should be taken up along with the final hearing. Having heard Mr. N. Patra for the intending intervenor we are of the opinion that the application for intervention has no merit and the same is accordingly rejected. 7. In course of hearing of the writ application, Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying upon Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Acquisition of Undertakings Act strenuously argues that the petitione is entitled to continued as sublessee on the same terms and conditions on which the sub- 1 lease had been held by Burma Shell immediately before the appointed day and therefore, opposite parties 4 to 8 are bound to renew the sublease on the old terms and conditions. Mr. Mukherjee also further argues that the renewal of the lease having been made on condition that the lessees (opposite parties 4 to 8) would grant first preference to Bharat Petroleum Corporation (Petitioner) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Orissa the same not having been done within thirty days from the date of the lease, according to the terms and conditions contained in the same, the State Government is entitled to cancel the lease and, therefore, this Court shouid issue a direction to that effect. Mr. Mukherjee further argues that the area being earmarked for utilisation by any public utility service and the Petitioner being one such and admittedly the Petitioner having invested a huge sum by installing the petrol pump, the State should be directed to grant the petrol pump area in favour of the Petitioner. We, however do not find any substance in any of these contentions raised by Mr. Mukherjee for the reasons to be indicated hearinafter. 8. To appreciate the first contention of Mr. Mukherjee, it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 5 of the Acquisition of Undertakings Act: 5. Central Government to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances. We, however do not find any substance in any of these contentions raised by Mr. Mukherjee for the reasons to be indicated hearinafter. 8. To appreciate the first contention of Mr. Mukherjee, it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 5 of the Acquisition of Undertakings Act: 5. Central Government to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances. (1) Where any property is held in India @y Burmah Shell under any lease or under any right of tenancy, the Central Government shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to have beconae the lessee or tenant, as the case may be, in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government, and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in, the Central Government. (2) On the expiry of the term of any lease or tenancy referred to in Sub-section (1), such lease or tenancy shall, if so desired by the Central Government, be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease I or tenancy was held by Burmah Shell immediately before the appointed day. The provisions of Section 5, extracted above, will not apply to the case of the Petitioner, inasmuch as the property in question was a leasehold property of late Banambar Patnaikand the said Banambar Patnaik had granted a sublease to the Burmah Shell Company. There was no privity of contract between the sublessee and the original lessor, the State of Orissa. The property belongs to the State and under the terms and conditions of the original lease, the lessee namely Banambar Patnaik had a right of exercise of option for renewal. The said right having been exercised by the legal representatives of late Banambar Patnaik, the State was entitled to renew the lease in favour of the said legal representatives. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Mukherjee does not authorise the Petitioner to claim a renewal on the pre-existing terms and, at any rate, the expression "if so desired by the Central Government" in Sub-section (2) is of great significance and the Central Government. has not expressed its desire and consequently Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can have no application. Mukherjee does not authorise the Petitioner to claim a renewal on the pre-existing terms and, at any rate, the expression "if so desired by the Central Government" in Sub-section (2) is of great significance and the Central Government. has not expressed its desire and consequently Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can have no application. That apart, it is wholly inequitable to permit the Petitioner to continue on the land on the same terms and conditions in view of the abnormal escalation of prices and the area in question is in the prime area of the New Capital and the Petitioner itself had given an offer of paying a higher premium as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of opposite parties 4 to 8. In the premises, as aforesaid, we have no hesitation to reject the first submission of Mr. Mukherjee and we hold that the Petitioner does not have any right under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Acquisition of Undertakings Act. 9. So far as the second submission is concerned, no doubt while re~1ewing the lease in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8, a condition has been incorporated to the effect that the Petitioner wiII get first preference of continuing the pump, but nowhere it is indicated that on account of non-performance of the same, the lease wiII be cancelled and, at any rate, that is a matter which lies in the discretion of the lessor, the State Government. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court cannot issue direction to the State Government to cancel the lease that has been renewed in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8. There is no statutory obligation which can be compelled to be performed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Orissa State Government. The second contention of Mr. Mukherjee is accordingly rejected. 10. So far as the third submission is concerned, as has been stated earlier, the Petitioner cannot have any right to claim that the land should be leased out to it. No provision nor anyagreement has been pointed out in support of the aforesaid stand of the Petitioner. We would, therefore, unhesitatingly reject the third submission of Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 11. No provision nor anyagreement has been pointed out in support of the aforesaid stand of the Petitioner. We would, therefore, unhesitatingly reject the third submission of Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 11. In course of hearing of the writ application, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State, however, stated that since the land has already been renewed with opposite parties 4 to 8 and since one of the terms and conditions of renewal was that the Petitioner Bharat Petroleum Corporation would be given the first preference on mutually agreed terms, opposite parties 4 to 8 must grant a sublease to the Petitioner on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed to between the parties. Mr. Palit appearing for opposite parties 4 to 8 brought to our notice the terms and conditions offered by the Petitioner itself in Annexure-I, but contended that in view of the escalation of prices, the Petitioner should be asked to pay at least a rental of Rs. 5,000/- per month and in that event opposite parties 4 to 8 would execute the sublease in favour of the Petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Petitioner, however, is not in a position to agree to any enhancement of the terms and conditions contained in Annexure-A. There is no dispute that the price of land has been enhanced exorbitantly in and around the New Capital of Bhubaneswar. Even the leasehold premium which was Rs. 10,000/- per acre by the Government has become Rs. 6.5 lakhs now and for commercial purposes the price is still higher. It is common knowledge that price of private land is twice that of the Government land. The land in question is centrally situated and from commercial point of view can be said to have the most advantageous position. Bearing in mind the afore-said circumstances, and also taking into consideration the offer made by the Petitioner itself contained in Annexure-A, we think that the reasonable rental for the land in question would be Rs. 4,000/- for the period 1st of April, 1984 till 31st of March, 1995 and would be Rs. 5,000/- for the period 1st April, 1995 till 31st of March, 2000. For the period 1st of April, 1980 till 31st of March, 1984, the Petitioner had itself offered the rental of Rs. 4,000/- for the period 1st of April, 1984 till 31st of March, 1995 and would be Rs. 5,000/- for the period 1st April, 1995 till 31st of March, 2000. For the period 1st of April, 1980 till 31st of March, 1984, the Petitioner had itself offered the rental of Rs. l,500f- per month and pursuant to an interim order of this Court dated 14-9-1988, the Petitioner was directed to deposit at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1st of April, 1980, till 31st of March, 1984 and, therefore, we do not think it appropriate to vary the rent for that period though opposite parties 4 to 8 claim that they are entitled to a much higher rent. 12. In the net result, therefore, we would hold that the Petitioner would be liable to pay rental at the rate of Rs. 0.500/- per month from 1st of April, 1980, till 31st of March, 1984 and at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from 1st of April, 1984 till 31st of March, 1995 and at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 1st of April, 1995 till 31st of March, 2000. If any payments have been made pursuant to the interim order; those payments may be taken into account and the Petitioner may pay the arrear as on date by calculating ip accordance with our direction above within a period of three months from today and shall continue thereafter, to pay regularly to opposite parties 4 to 8. Opposite parties 4 to 8 are directed to execute the sublease in favour of the Petitioner until 31st of March, 2000 after observing all formalities and after obtaining the permission of the State Government if such permission is so required also within a period of two months from today. The interim orders with regard to the land in question and its registration stand vacated. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Writ application dismissed.