Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from the judgment dated May 24, 1996, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.8654/95. The dispute concerned a sand mining lease granted to the appellant on December 5, 1994, for one year, expiring on December 5, 1995. The lease was executed, as admitted by the respondents. The Commissioner cancelled the lease on February 17, 1995. The appellant filed a revision before the State Government, which by order dated March 23, 1995, set aside the Commissioner's cancellation. However, the High Court stayed the operation of the Government's order on May 21, 1995, and ultimately by the impugned judgment set aside that order. In the meantime, pursuant to the High Court's direction, auctions were conducted, and third parties were inducted to undertake excavation of sand; those third parties were not before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that since the lease period could not be fully utilized due to the orders passed by the Commissioner and the courts, the time should be extended to execute the lease and work out the lease for the residue period. The respondent-Government had offered refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed by the High Court. The Supreme Court acknowledged that there was some force in the appellant's argument for extension of time, but held that because third-party rights had already intervened and those third parties were not before the Court, it could not give the direction sought. The Court noted that under the circumstances, it was stated in the affidavit that the respondent-Government had offered refund. Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.6,30,000/- to the appellants and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Third Party Rights - Extension of Lease - Not applicable - no specific statute referred - The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the High Court's order setting aside the State Government's restoration of the appellant's sand mining lease. Because the High Court had stayed the restoration, auctions were conducted and third parties were inducted, but those third parties were not before the Supreme Court. The Court held that although the appellant had some force in arguing for extension of the unutilized lease period, relief could not be granted in the absence of third parties whose rights had intervened; it directed refund of Rs.6,30,000/- and dismissed the appeal without costs. Held that respondents must refund Rs.6,30,000/- to the appellant. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lessee/appellant was entitled to extension of the lease period for the residue period when the lease could not be utilized due to orders of the Commissioner and courts, and whether such relief could be granted in absence of third parties whose rights had intervened.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because third-party rights had intervened and those third parties were not before the Court, it could not direct extension of the lease as sought. It directed the respondents to refund Rs.6,30,000/- to the appellants. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- When third-party rights have intervened and third parties are not impleaded
- court cannot grant relief affecting them
- Even if lessee has arguable claim for extension due to non-utilization
- relief cannot be granted in absence of affected third parties
- Court may direct refund of deposited amount instead of lease extension
