M/S Premier Commotrade Pvt.Ltd. vs State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 7335 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64673 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Premier Commotrade Pvt.Ltd.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- U.K.Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.P.Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Sri U.K. Saxena, on behalf of  the petitioner, Sri J.P. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.

Parties have exchanged their affidavits therefore the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 deliver the possession of plot No. A-12, Industrial Area, Rooma, Kanpur Nagar and to defer the payment of the installments including lease rent etc. till the date of delivery of possession of the allotted plot.  Further mandamus has been prayed for the money deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 28,98,037.77 paise for being adjusted  with the principal outstanding of the petitioner.  Facts in brief pleadings to the present writ petition are as follows:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to deliver the possession of plot no. A-12, Industrial Area, Rooma, Kanpur Nagar and further defer the payment of instalment due which included lease rent, occupation charges, maintenance charges etc. till the date of delivery of possession of the allotted plot.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 to adjust a sum of Rs. 28,98,037.77p. with the principal outstanding of the petitioner. 

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition."

Petitioner is a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act.  In order to establish a manufacturing unit the petitioner submitted an application before Regional Manager, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Regional Office, Kanpur on 29.3.2011 and prayed for allotment of  16000 sq. meters of land in Industrial Area, Rooma, Kanpur Nagar. 

The respondent no. 3 processed the application and ultimately vide order dated 28.4.2011 allotted 16000 sq. meters of lands in Industrial Area, Rooma described as Plot No. A-12 @ Rs. 2,000/- per sq. meter and allocation charges of 100 Sq. meters.  Copy of the allotment letter is Annexure 1-A to the present writ petition. 

It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the area of plot was sought to be increased to 16756 Sq. meter and accordingly cost of the plot was also increased.  An agreement was also executed between the parties and after the petitioner deposited the requisite money a lease-deed was executed on 18.10.2011 in respect of the said plot in favour of the petitioner.  Copy of the lease-deed is Annexure-3 to the present writ petition. 

Under the lease-deed, respondent no. 3 was under a legal obligation to deliver possession of the property so transferred within 30 days of the execution of the lease.  The petitioner in turn was required to make payment of the installment to the tune of Rs. 15,99,073.00/- in six monthly installments. 

It is admitted to the parties that till date the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,63,955,79.05 paise.  Despite all this possession of the plot allotted was not delivered to the petitioner who make representations which went unheeded hence the present petition.   Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been stated that the possession of the allotted plot could not delivered to the petitioner because of a farmers agitation and it is then stated that the Corporation in order to settle the issue is ready to adjust the petitioner in adjacent Industrial Area Chakeri-II, Kanpur on the same terms and conditions or to refund the total amount deposited by the petitioner till date i.e. Rs. 2,63,955,73.05 reference paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation.  It has also been stated in paragraph 16 that no other area is available in the development Industrial Area, Rooma and therefore the Corporation can at best offer land in the adjacent Industrial Area Chakeri-II.  The facts as noticed herein above reflect that the petitioner was allotted plot No. A-12 Industrial Area, Rooma.  This land had been acquired under Section 4/6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government and had been transferred in favour of the U.P. Industrial Development Corporation, Kanpur reference paragraph 3 of the Counter affidavit.  If for the agitation of farmers Corporation has not been able to deliver the possession of the said plot then it is the Corporation which is to be faulted for its laxity.   The deposit of the money by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,63,955,73.05 as noticed above is not in dispute.

We further find that under the lease-deed Clause P(J) P1 Page 43 of the paper book possession of the plot was to be delivered within 30 days of the execution of the lease. Even today the Corporation is not in a position to deliver the possession.  Since the Corporation has made an offer that the petitioner may take back the money which he has deposited or else the Corporation is ready to offer alternate site at Chakeri-II.  We may consider the offered so made by the U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation.  We may record that the petitioner did express his consent to have alternate land at Chakeri-II but in our opinion offer made by the U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation is not in the public interest.  Public interest has to be kept in mind by the U.P. State  Industrial Development Corporation.   The Regional Manager has for reasons best known to him mentioned in the offer that the land at Chakeri-II would be offered to the petitioner on same terms and conditions as were mentioned in the lease deed qua plot No. A-12 at Rooma.  In our opinion the offer effects the public exchequer adversely in  asmuchas the value of the land at Chakeri-II as on date may be much higher that what was to be paid by the petitioner in respect of the plot of the same size at Rooma and even otherwise the settlement of the plots by the U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation at different development area has to be done by  public auction/public negotiations.  They cannot privately offer particular plots of land on rates which were applicable in respect of another development area, namely, Rooma and thatto on a price which was fixed in the year 2011.

We therefore cannot issue a direction to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation to offer the alternate plot to the petitioner at Chakeri-II on same terms and conditions as were mentioned in the lease deed of 2011 in respect of the plot at Rooma.  We thus revert to the other offer which has been made by the U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation, namely, return of the money to the petitioner. 

We are of the opinion that the Corporation must return the entire money which has been deposited by the petitioner along with interest.  What should be the interest is the moot question ?  We draw  support from clause No. 8 of the lease deed which provides that in case of surrender of the lease, levy of interest @ 14 percent on the amount which was due to the Corporation upto to the date of the surrender is authorised. Similarly  Clause 9 also authorities the Corporation to charge interest on the defaulted value of the installments @ 14 percent. 

We therefore fix 14 percent as the interest to be paid along with the principal amount which has been deposited by the petitioner. This interest shall be calculated from the date the money was paid till the date of actual payment under our order.

We further direct  the Corporation to refund the entire money deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from today along with interest @ 14 percent.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 9.12.2013

Priyanka