Attachment of building on leased land upheld where lease continued and no termination notice was issued

Attachment of a building and superstructure on long-term leased land was upheld because the lease deed permitted construction of the industrial unit, ownership of the land remained with the State during the lease period, and no notice terminating or rescinding the lease had been issued. Acceptance of premium and annual rent also supported the view that there was no enforceable grievance against the attachment. The challenge was treated as lacking independent merit, particularly because release of the structure would have benefited the accused rather than protected any legal right of the appellant. The attachment order was therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had a sustainable grievance against attachment of the building constructed on leased land, and whether the lease terms and absence of termination of lease justified interference with the attachment order.

Analysis: The attachment was directed against the building and superstructure built on land leased to the accused for a long period, not against the land title as such. The lease deed showed that the lessee was authorised to construct the industrial unit, that the ownership of the leased premises remained with the State during the lease period, and that no notice of termination or rescission of the lease had been issued by the appellant. The appellant had accepted premium and annual rent, and the challenge was found to lack a real grievance of its own because releasing the attached structure would benefit the accused. In these circumstances, the appeal was viewed as lacking merit and as supporting the accused's interest rather than protecting any enforceable right of the appellant.

Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment order was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

---