Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 437 (UTT)

SUHRID SUDARSHAN SHAH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2012-07-30

BARIN GHOSH, U.C.DHYANI

body2012
JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no. 25 in the Court is accepted on record. 2. The State of Uttar Pradesh, before creation of the State of Uttarakhand, was in possession of 104 orchards, all of which belonged to it and which were situate in the territory which later on became part of the territory of the State of Uttarakhand. Until such time the State of Uttar Pradesh was in effective control of those orchards, the said State used to run and manage the same through its Horticulture Department. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the Horticulture Department of the State of Uttarakhand felt that cost of maintaining and managing those orchards being more than their returns, it would be better for the State of Uttarakhand to part with the said orchards in favour of general public. It invited six members of the public to take over seven of the orchards earmarked by the State of Uttarakhand in its Horticulture Department. On such invitation, all the six had shown their inclination to take those orchards on lease. Seven leases were executed and those six people came to be in possession of those seven orchards and became entitled to exploit the same to the extent permitted by and under the leases accorded in their favour. In relation to the remaining orchards, an advertisement was published and those remaining orchards were settled by granting of leases in favour of people, who succeeded upon response to the said advertisement. 3. In the present Public Interest Litigation, it is being contended that grants of such leases have not benefitted the State and, accordingly, those grants should be declared illegal. 4. This Court felt that the grants, which followed the advertisement, should not be interfered with, inasmuch as, it is not the contention in the writ petition that the advertisement was misleading or that the grants, settled after the advertisement, were not transparent. This Court felt that the matter, pertaining to grant of leases of seven orchards on invitation having been kept concealed from the people of the State, is required to be gone-in in public interest. We are told that out of seven grants, three of the grantees have surrendered the grants, but the remaining three are still holding on to the remaining four grants. We are told that out of seven grants, three of the grantees have surrendered the grants, but the remaining three are still holding on to the remaining four grants. Those three grantees are, namely, Akhilesh Kala, who has two of the grants, Dabur Research Foundation and Tata Energy Research Institute, both of them having single grant each. Akhilesh Kala, despite notice, has not responded, whereas Dabur Research Foundation and Tata Energy Research Institute have responded. 5. Dabur Research Foundation has disclosed in their pleadings that they were invited to take lease of an orchard having an area of 27.77 Hectares and, for which, it became obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 1250/- per Hectare per annum plus Rs. 1 as initial salami. They have said that the lease in their favour is for 25 years and the said lease was executed after the advertisement was published. They have not stated, however, that the lease in their favour was the subject matter of the advertisement. They have contended that the lease is for 25 years and the continuation of the lease is dependent on five yearly inspection followed by extension. Neither they, nor the State has brought on record that any inspection was carried out of the orchard, which was given to Dabur Research Foundation or that any letter was issued after expiry of the initial five years’ period of the lease holding out that the lessee, having complied with the terms and conditions of the lease, is entitled to continue as a lessee of the orchard in question. It was submitted by the learned counsel for Dabur Research Foundation that in terms of the lease, Dabur Research Foundation became obliged to impart Horticultural education to the people of the locality and also to provide them engagement. No attempt, however, has been made either by the State or by Dabur Research Foundation to bring to the notice of this Court, what achievement, if any, in that regard has been made by Dabur Research Foundation. It has been stated that Dabur Research Foundation has planted medicinal herb, which has capability of fighting cancer. No doubt, therefore, the land in question is being exploited by Dabur Research Foundation for its benefit to the extent possible. It has been stated that Dabur Research Foundation has planted medicinal herb, which has capability of fighting cancer. No doubt, therefore, the land in question is being exploited by Dabur Research Foundation for its benefit to the extent possible. The said state of affairs clearly shows that the said grant was made surreptitiously, benefit thereof has been earned only by Dabur Research Foundation and has not benefitted the State and its people to any extent, except to the tune of Rs. 1250 per Hectare per year. 6. Similar is the situation insofar as Tata Energy Research Institute is concerned, which has been given an orchard spread over an area of 7.50 Hectares at a yearly rental of Rs. 7245/-. 7. It may be possible that what the State is making by renting out the properties in question, it cannot make better than that, but in order to arrive at the said conclusion, it is obligatory on the part of the State to ensure that it has taken whatever steps are required to be taken for determining what it can get. This was not done in the instant case. We, accordingly, cancel the grants and the leases granted in favour of Akhilesh Kala, Dabur Research Foundation and Tata Energy Research Institute with a direction upon each one of them to hand over physical possession of the orchards in question to the State Horticulture Department within a period of six months from today, with a further direction upon the State to take 4 possession thereof on or before the date as mentioned above. After having had taken possession of the orchards in question, it shall be open to the State to utilize the same by parting with the possession thereof in favour of private individuals, but while doing so, it must make an endeavour to ascertain at least, what best possible price it can get for the same. It shall also be open for the State to enter into private public partnership arrangement for exploitation of the said orchards. 8. With the directions as above, we dispose of the public interest litigation.