NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED versus ORBIT MOTELS AND INNS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 06-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 650
650
NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
v.
ORBIT MOTELS AND INNS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8582 of 2022)
DECEMBER 06, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Public property – Termination of lease – Allotment for public
need and larger public interest – In the instant case, private
respondent was the sub-lessee of the Tourism Corporation, who
was the lessee of the Public Works Department of the State of
Maharashtra – The lease was subject to the right of requisition and
consequent termination of the lease by the State of Maharashtra, in
case, land in question was required for public purpose, without
any right to the Tourism Corporation as well as the lessee to
challenge such intention of the Government of Maharashtra – The
Tourism Corporation terminated the lease granted to the respondent
– Thereafter the lease granted to the Tourism Corporation was
terminated in pursuance of the order of the State citing public interest
involving Nagpur Metro Rail Project and the allotment was made to
appellant-Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation – The private respondent
(sub-lessee) challenged the termination of lease before the High
Court – High Court allowed the writ petition holding that appellant
took over the possession forcibly and highhandedly by entering
into the premises and, therefore, the same was arbitrary and illegal
– Hence instant appeal – Held: Pursuant to the order of the State,
the appellant was given occupation and possession of the land in
question, and the allotment order itself was not challenged, therefore,
the appellant cannot be said to be in illegal possession – Also the
lease granted to the respondent was terminated and the fact of said
termination is in question in a civil suit (pending) and hence his
right is not clear – Further the allotment to the Corporation was
made considering the public need and larger public interest and
since the same was not challenged hence High Court erred in
allowing the petition.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Pursuant to the allotment order dated 25.08.2015
by the Collector, the land in question has been allotted to the
appellant for a public purpose namely, Nagpur Metro Rail Project.
Pursuant to the said allotment order, the appellant has been in
occupation and possession of the land in question, which is being
used by the appellant for railway project. The order of allotment
dated 25.08.2015 has not been challenged at all by the original
writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. Therefore, as such, when the
appellant is allottee of the land in question and is in occupation
and possession of the allotted land, which is being used for a
public purpose, i.e., Nagpur Metro Rail Project, the appellant
cannot be said to be in illegal possession. Therefore, as such,
the High Court has materially erred in holding that the appellant
is in illegal possession and occupation of the land in question.
[Para 6][658-F-H; 659-A-B]
2. Even otherwise, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1
considering the fact that there was a cloud over the title of the
respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 claimed the right as a lessee
pursuant to the registered Lease Deed dated 17.07.1995.
However, the lease in favour of the respondent No. 1-original
writ petitioner has been terminated by notice dated 27.05.2002.
The termination of the lease is the subject matter of Civil Suit
No. 413 of 2002 filed by the respondent No.1 against respondent
No.3. Neither any interim relief / order had been prayed nor there
was an interim relief in favour of respondent No. 1 in the pending
suit. In the meantime, considering the public need and in the
larger public interest, the land in question is allotted to the Metro
for Nagpur Metro Rail Project. [Para 6.1][659-B-D]
3. Even otherwise, in view of the disputed question of facts
that whether the actual possession was taken over or not and / or
whether the appellant was handed over the possession rightly or
not, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned
judgment and order and ought not to have issued the impugned
directions in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. If respondent No.1 succeeds in the suit
NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. v. ORBIT
MOTELS AND INNS PVT. LTD., NAGPUR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
filed by him, in that ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.