Punjab Cotton Mills Limited v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the order dated

petitioner, Sri Purnendu Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, Sri Abhishek and Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding the respondents to transfer the ownership rights of plot no. 4 admeasuring 2.896 acres situated at Shastri Nagar, kanpur in favour of petitioner company namely Punjab Cotton Company (Export Import) Ltd. according to and by virtue of board resolution and agreement dated 28.01.1975 and 30.01.1975 respectively passed by respondent no.4, Lakshmi Rattan Cotton Mills Company Ltd. (a unit of National Textile Corporation Ltd. - NTCL).

3. At the outset, Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate has raised an objection on the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two 2 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 fold submissions, firstly the petitioner had earlier instituted Writ- C No. 14859 of 2024 (Punjab Cotton Mills Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the respondent cancelling the lease in respect of 2.896 acres of land situated in Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur was assailed and it was also prayed in the said proceeding for a direction commanding the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of agreement to sale dated 30.01.1975 and also to give its possession of the Arazi in question in favour of the petitioner inter alia with following order: "1. The present writ petition is preferred with following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari the Hon'ble Court be please to quash the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the lease in respect of 2.896 acres of land, situate in Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur Annexure No. 17 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing to the respondent No.3 to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner in pursuance of agreement to sale dated 30.01.1975 and also give the possession of the arazi in question in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing to the respondent No.3 to the construct the Flat/Colony on the disputed land which is situated at Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur, during the pendency of the writ petition."

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some some length, once we decline to entertain the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner i.e., Punjab Cotton Mills Limited , on the ground that the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 has been passed against Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mill Company Ltd., in whose favor the Authority has made certain allotment and the allotment in favour of the Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mill Company Ltd., was cancelled and the applications moved on behalf of the petitioner i.e. Punjab Cotton Mills for transfer of the said land have been rejected, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the instant 3 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 writ petition and it may be dismissed as not pressed.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

4. This order has been passed with the assistance of Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent no.2- Kanpur Development Authority, Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.4- The Nagar Nigam Motijheel, Kanpur Nagar, Mr. Fuzail Ahmed Ansari, learning Standing Counsel for the State respondents."

4. The Division Bench heard the matter on 13.05.2024. Once the Court has declined to interfere in the order dated 13.05.2022 and the same was dismissed as not pressed as there was no relief and no leave was accorded by the Division Bench to institute a fresh proceeding. In the instant proceeding, the petitioner is confined the relief, which has already press as relief no. (ii) in the previous writ petiton.

5. Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate submits that thereafter the petitioner had preferred the writ petition before Hon'ble the Apex Court being Writ Petition (s) (civil) No. 171 of 2025 (Punjab Cotton Company (Export Import) Limited vs. Union of India and others) and thereafter sought permission to withdraw the instant petition, Hon'ble the Apex Court has dismissed the same as withdrawn and the liberty was obtained to press the relief before the High Court by way of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under: "1. Having argued for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition reserving liberty the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Court by way of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

2. Permission granted.

3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid."

6. He further submits that once when the writ petition was dismissed and no relief was accorded to institute the fresh 4 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 proceeding and the order dated 13.05.2024 has not been assailed and the same has attained the finality, even though in the light of the leave accorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant proceeding has been withdrawn, which is liable to be treated as second writ petition for the same cause of action, which was already denied by the Division Bench vide order dated

13.05.2024. The second objection has already been raised in the similar facts in Writ-C No. 49961 of 2017 (M/S Malook Chand and sons vs. Union of India and others), wherein the relief was prayed for a direction commanding the Union of India to hand over the physical possession of "Darshan Purva Property" and execute the agreement that was entered into between the petitioner and erstwhile company on the basis of some agreement, which was executed in the year 1974. The Division Bench has opined that the said writ petition cannot be entertained for the relief claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of an agreement which, if any, was executed in the year 1974. The Court has further observed that as much water has flown since then, the claim of the petitioner should have been made under Laxmirattan and Atherton Cotton Mills (Taking over the Management) Act, 1976 or under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995 and in any case, it was always open to the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the money or property or apply for winding up of Company under the Companies Act, 1956.

7. Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate states that this petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as the same has been preferred with concealment of facts. The order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 14859 of 2024 had not been brought on record.

8. Once an objection has been raised, we have proceeded to examine the record. At this stage, we are not inclined to make any observation regarding concealment of fact as the leave is accorded by the Apex Court by passing the order dated

03.03.2025 in Writ Petition (s) (civil) No. 171 of 2025. However, we find the second relief, was already pressed in the earlier petition, which was dismissed and there was no leave at all to 5 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 institue the fresh proceeding moreover for the same relief. However, the entire claim has been set up on the basis of the board resolution and agreement dated 28.01.1975 and 30.01.1975 respectively passed by respondent no.4.

9. We find that the claim of the petitioner should have been made under Laxmiratten and Atherton Cotton Mills (Taking over the Management) Act, 1976 or under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995, it is always open to the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the money or property or press the relief under the Companies Act, 1956.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) August 23, 2025 Ashish Pd. ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

petitioner, Sri Purnendu Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, Sri Abhishek and Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding the respondents to transfer the ownership rights of plot no. 4 admeasuring 2.896 acres situated at Shastri Nagar, kanpur in favour of petitioner company namely Punjab Cotton Company (Export Import) Ltd. according to and by virtue of board resolution and agreement dated 28.01.1975 and 30.01.1975 respectively passed by respondent no.4, Lakshmi Rattan Cotton Mills Company Ltd. (a unit of National Textile Corporation Ltd. - NTCL).

3. At the outset, Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate has raised an objection on the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two 2 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 fold submissions, firstly the petitioner had earlier instituted Writ- C No. 14859 of 2024 (Punjab Cotton Mills Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the respondent cancelling the lease in respect of 2.896 acres of land situated in Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur was assailed and it was also prayed in the said proceeding for a direction commanding the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of agreement to sale dated 30.01.1975 and also to give its possession of the Arazi in question in favour of the petitioner inter alia with following order: "1. The present writ petition is preferred with following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari the Hon'ble Court be please to quash the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the lease in respect of 2.896 acres of land, situate in Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur Annexure No. 17 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing to the respondent No.3 to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner in pursuance of agreement to sale dated 30.01.1975 and also give the possession of the arazi in question in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing to the respondent No.3 to the construct the Flat/Colony on the disputed land which is situated at Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur, during the pendency of the writ petition."

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some some length, once we decline to entertain the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner i.e., Punjab Cotton Mills Limited , on the ground that the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 has been passed against Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mill Company Ltd., in whose favor the Authority has made certain allotment and the allotment in favour of the Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mill Company Ltd., was cancelled and the applications moved on behalf of the petitioner i.e. Punjab Cotton Mills for transfer of the said land have been rejected, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the instant 3 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 writ petition and it may be dismissed as not pressed.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

4. This order has been passed with the assistance of Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent no.2- Kanpur Development Authority, Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.4- The Nagar Nigam Motijheel, Kanpur Nagar, Mr. Fuzail Ahmed Ansari, learning Standing Counsel for the State respondents."

4. The Division Bench heard the matter on 13.05.2024. Once the Court has declined to interfere in the order dated 13.05.2022 and the same was dismissed as not pressed as there was no relief and no leave was accorded by the Division Bench to institute a fresh proceeding. In the instant proceeding, the petitioner is confined the relief, which has already press as relief no. (ii) in the previous writ petiton.

5. Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate submits that thereafter the petitioner had preferred the writ petition before Hon'ble the Apex Court being Writ Petition (s) (civil) No. 171 of 2025 (Punjab Cotton Company (Export Import) Limited vs. Union of India and others) and thereafter sought permission to withdraw the instant petition, Hon'ble the Apex Court has dismissed the same as withdrawn and the liberty was obtained to press the relief before the High Court by way of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under: "1. Having argued for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition reserving liberty the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Court by way of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

2. Permission granted.

3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid."

6. He further submits that once when the writ petition was dismissed and no relief was accorded to institute the fresh 4 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 proceeding and the order dated 13.05.2024 has not been assailed and the same has attained the finality, even though in the light of the leave accorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant proceeding has been withdrawn, which is liable to be treated as second writ petition for the same cause of action, which was already denied by the Division Bench vide order dated

13.05.2024. The second objection has already been raised in the similar facts in Writ-C No. 49961 of 2017 (M/S Malook Chand and sons vs. Union of India and others), wherein the relief was prayed for a direction commanding the Union of India to hand over the physical possession of "Darshan Purva Property" and execute the agreement that was entered into between the petitioner and erstwhile company on the basis of some agreement, which was executed in the year 1974. The Division Bench has opined that the said writ petition cannot be entertained for the relief claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of an agreement which, if any, was executed in the year 1974. The Court has further observed that as much water has flown since then, the claim of the petitioner should have been made under Laxmirattan and Atherton Cotton Mills (Taking over the Management) Act, 1976 or under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995 and in any case, it was always open to the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the money or property or apply for winding up of Company under the Companies Act, 1956.

7. Sri Nagar, learned Senior Advocate states that this petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as the same has been preferred with concealment of facts. The order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 14859 of 2024 had not been brought on record.

8. Once an objection has been raised, we have proceeded to examine the record. At this stage, we are not inclined to make any observation regarding concealment of fact as the leave is accorded by the Apex Court by passing the order dated

03.03.2025 in Writ Petition (s) (civil) No. 171 of 2025. However, we find the second relief, was already pressed in the earlier petition, which was dismissed and there was no leave at all to 5 WRIC No. 13725 of 2025 institue the fresh proceeding moreover for the same relief. However, the entire claim has been set up on the basis of the board resolution and agreement dated 28.01.1975 and 30.01.1975 respectively passed by respondent no.4.

9. We find that the claim of the petitioner should have been made under Laxmiratten and Atherton Cotton Mills (Taking over the Management) Act, 1976 or under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995, it is always open to the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the money or property or press the relief under the Companies Act, 1956.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) August 23, 2025 Ashish Pd. ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad