Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3916 of 2021 Petitioner :- Moumita Betal Respondent :- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suman Kumar Yadav,Akhilesh Misra,Jeetlal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai,Vikas Budhwar
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Vikas Budhwar for respondent no.1; the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3; and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the intervenor-Shyamvanti Devi.
By this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction upon the second respondent (District Magistrate, Chandauli) to issue no- objection certificate for setting up new retail outlet at Plot No.295 Chandauli Naubatpur Road, Village Chhitto, Tehsil Chandauli, District Chandauli.
It appears from the submissions as well as from the record that no-objection certificate for setting up a retail outlet at the site was applied for by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (first respondent) (in short the Corporation) on the ground that the dealer select had offered the site for that purpose. The Additional District Magistrate, Chandauli by letter dated 24th December, 2020 informed the Corporation that the application for no-objection certificate cannot be accepted unless the Corporation provides a document to demonstrate that it has some right over the site. The letter informs the Regional Manager of the Corporation that since there is no lease deed appended along with the application for issuance of no- objection certificate, the application is not acceptable and, therefore, a fresh application be submitted by completing the necessary formalities.
This petition has not been filed by the Corporation but by the dealer select by claiming that she has obtained on lease a portion of the Plot No.295 from Satya Narayan Singh and Rakesh and under the said lease, she has a right to offer the site for the purposes of setting up retail outlet of the Corporation and, therefore, a direction be issued upon the second respondent (District Magistrate, Chandauli) to issue no-objection certificate.
The intervenor, Ms. Shyamanti Devi, has filed an affidavit along with the impleadment application to demonstrate that Satya Narayan Singh, the lessor of the petitioner, has himself instituted a suit in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chandauli for partition of Plot No.295 area 1.2460 hectare falling in Khata No.207. A copy of the plaint in that suit has been enclosed along with the affidavit as annexure 3 thereof to demonstrate that Shyamanti Devi is one of the defendants in the suit and have been impleaded as a co-sharer of the said plot.
The argument on behalf of the intervenor, Shyamanti Devi, is that unless and until the said plot is duly partitioned, all the co- owners of the plot are owners of every inch of the property and, therefore, any specific portion of that property cannot be utilized by anyone of the co-sharers without the consent of the other co-owners/co-sharers.
It has thus been argued on behalf of the intervenor that since there exists no partition of the plot concerned, the application to allow setting up a retail outlet on a specific portion of the said plot cannot be made.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit stating that on the objection taken by the defendants, the suit for partition has been dismissed on the ground that the land is abadi and, therefore, the revenue court would have no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.
Be that as it may, even if the suit has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction the status of the parties to the suit would not automatically change from that of co-owners to exclusive owners. Even the documents that have been placed on record, including the khatauni extract, demonstrate that Plot No.295 is recorded in multiple names. It is not exclusively recorded in the name of either the petitioner or the lessor from whom the petitioner has allegedly obtained a specific portion of the plot on lease.
Under these circumstances, since Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 requires the applicant to submit a site plan showing the location of the site over which the unit is proposed to be established, in absence of partition and consent of all the recorded co-sharers of the land where that site is located, we find no good reason to issue mandamus upon the District Magistrate, Chandauli to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of no-objection certificate for the site.
The petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this petition will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to submit fresh application after partition or with the consent of all the co- sharers of the plot.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Bhaskar