G.M. LODHA, J.
(1.) Since common questions of law were involved, I have accepted the joint request of both the parties to hear and decide all these seven cases by a common judgment.
(2.) These are seven writ petitions filed by the industrialists of Pali against the auction of the land by the respondents. The petitioner's case is that in the industrial area of Pali they were allotted various plots, the measurements and specifications of which have been given in the lease-deeds annexed with the writ petitions. According to the petitioners the respondents No. 1 and 2 now want to illegally curtail a strip of ten meters land adjacent to the road which is known as Madia Road, Pali.
(3.) The petitioners rely upon clause No. 1 of the lease deed in which on the northern side a road has been shown. This road, according to the petitioners is Mandia road. It is contended that the respondents are bound by the boundaries shown in the lease deed clause (1) and they cannot usurp any land between the road and the plot allotted to the petitioners and auction it. Mr. Parekh submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to violate the lease deed and petitioner's fundamental right to do business and industry in these particular plots are being violated. It was also submitted that the right to hold property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution is also being violated by alleged auction of land by the respondents.
(4.) The respondents no. 1 and 2 have contested the writ petition. Mr. Singhvi appearing for the contested respondent no. 1, has pointed out that each one of the lease-deed is accompanied by a site-plan. According to Mr. Singhvi the very plan submitted by the petitioner in each of the cases along with the writ petition would show that on the northern side between the plots of the petitioners and the Madia road there is open land which is not in the boundaries of the plots allotted to the petitioners. It was also argued that the allotment orders expressly mentioned it but the petitioner has suppressed them and produced only lease deeds.
(5.) Mr. Singhvi submitted that the respondents have decided to keep a passage of 3 to 4 meters in between the land which they are going to auction and the plots of the petitioners, and the petitioners will have no difficulty or problem of way and in taking any conveyance inside their plots. Mr. Singhvi gave an undertaking for the same.
(6.) Mr. Pareekh on the contrary pointed out the proceedings of the meeting dated 21. 9. 78 in which at item no. 3 it has been mentioned that in the plots of industrial area No. 3 the roads requires minor alterations. It was mentioned here that earlier the main road land of 10 meter was left vacant but many of the plot-holders have not left it and that has created disparity and inequality. It was decided that in these circumstances those plot holders who are anxious may be allotted some land in front of them for which the rates may be fixed by R. M. and D. C.
(7.) Mr. Hastimal has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council, The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Government of Palestine (1). Head note A of which reads as under : "in construing a grant of land a description by fix boundaries is to be preferred to a conflicting description by area. The statement as to area is to be rejected as false demonstration. "
(8.) Reliance has also been placed on another judgment of this Court Partumal vs. Managing Officer, Jaipur (2). According to Mr. Parekh his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (i) (g) and constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300 A have been violated by the alleged action of the non-petitioners.
(9.) I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record produced by them and specifically the lease deed and orders, the plans of the industrial areas concerned containing the relevant plots, and more particularly the Madia Road and its surroundings shown therein.
(10.) Before I proceed further I am constrained to mention that the petitioners have not produced the allotment orders in any of the cases When the question relates to allotment by a Corporation, it could not have been by oral negotiations. The sale or lease of land must have been initiated by some communication in the form of allotment letter or analogous to it. It was expected of the petitioners that in case they want to invoke extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction of Article 226, they should fairly and bonafidely place the entire record more particularly the basic and fundamental record consisting of the allotment letter or orders by which the allotments were made, before the lease deed were executed.
(11.) Even then the present one are not cases of that species of suppression, where the petition can be dismissed only on this count and, therefore, I am ignoring the non-production by the petitioners of the allotment orders and I would proceed to examine the merits of the case.
(12.) It may be pertinent to note here that the respondents have filed allotment letters which are printed one. They are Ex. Rl/1 in the writ petitions of M/s Khaja Printing and Messrs. Manohar Process Ltd. , M/s Rangwala Textiles, M/s Lodha Fabrics. A perusal of these allotment letters would show that they were sent by registered A/d to the petitioners at the time of allotment They further show that condition No. 8 was added to the allotment orders which was in printed forms which reads as under :- " (8) Due to proposed change in plan it is not possible to allot a 10 meter strip vide parallel to Madiya road. " These allotment letters were issued prior to the execution of the lease deeds.
(13.) In all cases lease deeds were executed and the lease deed contains condition No. 1 mentioning the number of the plot, the area of the plot and the boundaries. It is significant that these lease deeds expressly mention that these plots were situated in the industrial area at Madia road, Pali. In none of the plots on the northern side Madia road exactly has been mentioned but all that has been mentioned is that on the north there is road.
(14.) The most significant feature of these lease deeds is that in clause No. (i) after mentioning the boundaries a rider has been added in the following language : - "and which said plots of land is more clearly delineated and shown in the attached plan therein marked red to hold the said plot of land. "
(15.) It would thus be seen that the attached plan and the red marking in it would have and will clinch the issue, so far as the dispute raised by the petitioners is concerned. The petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, have not produced the original plan having red marking and it is difficult to comment whether it is deliberate or inadvertent action only. In a few cases the copy of the plan have been produced with the lease deed in which site plan of the plot allotted to the petitioner had been shown and in few other cases the general plan of the industrial area including the plot of the petitioner have been produced.
(16.) Though I have examined each one of them, but it would be sufficient if I discuss both types of plans. In M/s Rangwala Textiles, Pali lease deed is Ex. 1 at page 11-A. The plan annexed to it is at page 11 (h). This plan according to the covenant referred to above is part and parcel of the lease deed and the plot allotted to the petitioner will have to be delineated from it.
(17.) It is significant to note that the plot of the petitioner in this case is numbered as E-44. According to the measurements it is 70 meters x 82 meter. The most crucial feature of this plan is that the road on the northern side is 30 meter wide but between the plot of the petitioner and this road there is a strip of 10 meter. This strip of 10 meter is out side the plot of the petitioner on the northern side and in between the road and the commencement of the area of the plot.
(18.) Similarly in the case of the Narain Das Plot No E-46 has been allotted to him. This plot E-46 is of the dimensions of 70 meter x 66 meter both as mentioned in the lease-deed condition No. 1 and the site plan of this plot annexed to the lease-deed. In this site plan also the road on the northern side is after the 10 meter strip. The width of the road is 30 meter. The width of the strip between the road and the plot is 10 meter. The above are 2 illustrative cases to show that in each case the respondent attached a site plan of individual plot along with the lease deed.
(19.) Condition No. 1 of the lease deed expressly mentioned that the plot which is being given to the petitioner is one which has been shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the lease deed. After a careful considered detailed study of these site plans, which I have done after showing them all and the particular peculiar features to Mr. Hastimal and Mr. Singhvi; I am convinced that whatsoever might have been the negotiations and disputes at different levels the lease deed itself which has been made the bedrock and foundation of all contentions by Mr. Hastimal, makes it clear that the 10 meter strip is in between the Madia road and the plot of the petitioners. That being so any attempt of the petitioners to argue that the respondents are now carving out 10 merer strip by usurping or encroaching upon the land of the petitioners, is wholly untenable.
(20.) It should be made clear that when a lease deed is accompanied by the site plan and the lease deed expressly mentions that the land or the plot given in lease can be or should be more clearly delineated from the attached plan where it has been marked in red, the plot shown in the plan would be the authentic, to decide all disputes and doubts about the area, boundaries etc.
(21.) In the instant case the boundaries, area and the description shown in the plan and lease deed all tally with each other and there is no difference or discrepancy. Even if there would have been discrepancy, the plan when made part and parcel of the lease deed and when given in superior position by the covenant of the lease deed, would clinch all the issues. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the present cases the 10 meter strip on the northern side of the plots from which the land is being sold now or have been sold by auction is not part of the land given on lease to the petitioners and the petitioners have got no right whatsoever on this land.
(22.) Since the site plan of individual plots have not been produced in all cases, it would be necessary to examine the plan which has been termed as "revised lay out plan for industrial area, Madia road, Pali. " I would examine one case out of the lot for analysing this plan also. In M/s Manohar Processors the lease deed mentions that plot No. E 35/a of 2800 sq. meters has been allotted. Condition No. 1 which is printed in all these cases gives the same superiority and importance to the plan attached to lease deeds. E 35/a has been mentioned by ink. The petitioner has failed to produce the original plan in which the red marking demarcating the plot must have been there according to the lease deed. Madia road has been shown and after Madia road there are 2 lines drawn which go to show that in between Madia road and the plots there is other open strip of land which is neither part of Madia road nor part of these plots. Since the plan having red marking have not been produced by the petitioners, the reading of the plan as stands would show that in between the roads and the plots, there is open land. This is a revised lay out plan which was attached to the lease deeds at the time of execution.
(23.) This revised lay out plan shows that 10 meter strip has been left and there is a mention of it by showing an arrow at the point of plot No. E-45. If there was any doubts initially, they have been removed by this revised lay out plans. These plans have been produced by petitioners and they are basic, fundamental documents from which all rights flow. The petitioners cannot go beyond them as "no one can be more Pious than the Pope himself. '. It is not the case of the petitioner that out of 70 ft. North to South, they would get only 60 ft. now.
(24.) In M/s Surajkaran Fabrics writ petition, E. 20 has been allotted which is almost in identical terms. Surprisingly enough in the paper book Ex. 1 lease agreement is accompanied by a different plan prepared by hand at page 11 J. Although there is no such plan in the original writ petition, in this copy at page 11j an attempt has been made to put red colour by hand and 30 meter wide road has been attached to it. It is difficult to appreciate how a copy of a plan at page 11 J has been produced without there being any original in the original writ petition. It is difficult to say whether this production of an unauthenticated plan showing the red marking at page 11-J in M/s Soorajkaran Fabrics case and that too without producing the original in the original writ petition, is a deliberate attempt of the petitioner to create confusion or it is confused attempt of the petitioner due to inadvertence. Whatever the case may be this Court would not permit itself to be confused by such production of unauthenticated plans and that too introduced in the copy of writ petition, the original in writ being different. The stamp reporter of the office should have objected to such production to avoid misleading of the Court.
(25.) The net result of the above discussions is that a comprehensive reading of the lease deed and the site plan annexed with them leave no room for doubt that the 10 meter strip on the northern side is located in between the road and the area of the plots of petition
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ers and is not part of the plots leased out to the petitioners. (26.) In view of the above factual finding there remains no scope for any further discussion about the applicability of the various decisions and judgments cited by Mr. H. M. Parekh, as all of them can apply only if on facts I am convinced that the respondents are trying to usurp or encroach upon the land leased out to the petitioners. (27.) Mr. Singhvi has also made it clear that even from this strip of land of 10 meters width, the respondents would leave spacious passage for coming in and coming out of the vehicles in the plot of the petitioners and width of this passage would in no case be less than 3 to 4 meters. I have recorded this undertaking in the judgment so that the respondents can be compelled to abide by it in future. In view of this clear undertaking of the learned advocate for respondents there is no necessity of examining another submission of Mr. Parekh that this plots would be having no access from out side. Even otherwise I examined the site plan and the documents and I am convinced that the submission of Mr. Parekh are not well founded. (28.) It is further made clear that in case of any such obstruction or invasion of rights of easement of necessity or other legal rights, petitioners would be at liberty to file regular civil suit to restrain the respondents. The net result is that with the above observations and recording of respondents undertaking, these writ petitions are dismissed, without any order as to costs. .