Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
SUBHASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM MILAN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both
sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
dated May 24, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in
W.P. No.8654/95.
The admitted position is that though lease was granted
to the appellants on December 5, 1994 for one year and was
executed, as admitted by the respondents, on the said date,
it expired on December 5, 1995. It is contended that the
lease granted to the appellants was cancelled by the
Commissioner on February 17, 1995 and on a revision filed by
the appellants to the State Government by order dated March
23, 1995, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. But
unfortunately the operation of the order of the Government
was stayed by the High Court on May 21, 1995 and it set
aside the order of the Government by the impugned order. It
is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction of the High
Court the auctions were conducted and third parties have
been inducted to work out the excavation of the sand; but
they are not before us. Though there is some force in the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that
since the working of the period of the lease granted to the
appellants was not allowed to be fully utilised on account
of the orders passed by the courts or the Commissioner, the
time may be extended for the appellants to execute the lease
and work out the lease for the residue period, as stated
earlier, since the third party rights have already been
intervened, in their absence we cannot give the direction as
sought for. Under these circumstances, it is stated in the
affidavit itself that the respondent-Government have offered
refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed
by the High Court. The respondents are directed to refund
the amount of Rs. 6,30,000/-.
We are constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs.