MP HC Protects 1919 Perpetual Lessee’s Possession, Quashes Indore Corporation’s Lease Cancellation After It Fails To Show The Land Vested In It

The petitioner claimed rights in Plot No. 11/7, M.G. Road, Indore, tracing the property to a perpetual lease executed in 1919 by the Superintendent of Indore Municipality on behalf of the Maharaja Holkar, followed by successive transfers.

The Corporation issued notices in August 2022 alleging breach of the lease conditions and, by order dated 13 October 2022, cancelled the lease and directed the petitioner to surrender possession.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226. In earlier proceedings concerning building permission, the High Court had held that the plot was not part of the cemetery; the Corporation’s appeal was dismissed, and its SLP remained pending before the Supreme Court.

The writ petition was allowed to proceed on the basis that the Corporation had not established its authority to act as lessor of the disputed property.

Article 226 permits supervisory intervention where an authority acts without jurisdiction or violates natural justice; the Court relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and the certiorari principles discussed in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai.

Sections 82 and 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, concern property vesting in the Corporation and its duty to maintain a register and map of its immovable property; the Court treated the absence of such records as relevant to whether the disputed land had vested in the Corporation.

The Court also considered Sections 107, 109, 111 and 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and distinguished Sajni v. Indore Development Authority, which cautions against deciding disputed lease-covenant issues in writ proceedings.

It further referred to Section 36 of the Indore Municipality Act, 1909, and authorities concerning municipal vesting, including Municipal Corporation, Indore v. State of M.P.

The Court concluded that the Corporation had not produced material—such as an entry in its property register or another document of vesting—establishing its title to the plot or authority to terminate the lease.

It considered the lease’s execution on behalf of the Maharaja, the revenue entries recording the land as Government property, the earlier finding that the plot was separate from the cemetery, and prior municipal permissions relevant to the petitioner’s position.

In the Court’s view, the Corporation could not assume the role of lessor and cancel the lease without establishing its authority.

It rejected the alternative-remedy objection, considering the asserted lack of jurisdiction and natural-justice concerns, and found Sajni distinguishable on the facts.

The Court also held that the cancellation action was arbitrary and that the petitioner had not received a reasonable opportunity of hearing; it additionally noted the pending SLP.