AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 16660 of 2015 which is impugned in the present intra-court appeal requiring this Court’s interference.
It appears to be an admitted fact that two pieces of lands were allotted by the appellants in favour of the respondent No.1 for construction of hospital. It is also an admitted fact that the lands in question belonged to the State Government which was set aside for construction of a hospital. It is also clear from the submission which has been advanced on behalf of the appellants that the appellants could execute a lease deed in favour of the respondent No.1 only after execution of a lease deed by the Government in favour of the Development Authority. The allotment was made in the year 1991 by the appellants. The lease deed by the State Government was executed in favour of the Development Authority (the appellants) in 2005 i.e. nearly 14 years after the land(s) was allotted to the respondent No.1. The stand of the Development Authority that there was failure on the part of the respondent No.1 to construct hospital for all the 14 years which has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. This is the fact because in the absence of execution of lease deed by the Development Authority in favour of the respondent No.1, he could not have constructed the hospital. The appellants declined to execute the lease deed in favour of the respondent No.1 mainly on the ground that he delayed construction of the hospital and made certain construction over the land for purpose not in accordance with the one for which the same was allotted.
After having gone through the pleadings on record and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requiring the appellants to execute lease deed, we do not find any such infirmity requiring this Court’s interference on an intra-court appeal.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants after having realized all the aspects of the matter does not intend to press the present appeal to avoid imposition of cost.
It has been brought to our notice that a contempt application being CONTC No.4690 of 2021 is pending for willful disobedience of the aforesaid order dated 19.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.16660 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge as the appellants have not so far as execute the lease deed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellants have been pursuing their remedy by filing present intra-court appeal, the time for execution of lease deed in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby extended to four weeks from today.
If the appellants fail to comply with the said order, then appropriate action shall be taken in the said CONTC No.4690 of 2021.
The writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn but with the modification as noted above in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
…………………………….