Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri Sumit Bajaj vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (MS) No. 2668 of 2018
Mr. Vikrant Agarwal. ................Petitioner.
Through: Shri Sumit Bajaj, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .........Respondents.
Through: Shri G.S. Negi, learned Brief Holder
for the State / respondent no. 3.
Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for
respondents no. 1 and 2.
Date of Hearing and Order : 22.08.2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
(Upon hearing of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has passed
the following Orders):
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, an intending
entrepreneur, has prayed for the following relief:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing / setting aside the impugned letter dated
27.07.2018 (Annexure No. 5) issued by respondent no. 2 for
restoration of plot no. 65A Sector 6 to the extent of imposing
condition to deposit Rs. 67,500/- against the restoration levy @
7.5% at the prevailing rate of Rs. 1500/- with additional
guarantee and the restoration of the plot be allowed on deposition
of levy @ 7.5 at the then prevailing rate.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to
forthwith handover the possession of plot no. 65A Sector 6
SIDCUL Pantnagar, Udham Singh Nagar to the petitioner"
2. This is a second journey of the petitioner to this Court. In
earlier writ petition being WPMS No. 1254 of 2006 following
order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on
26.03.2018:
"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment cited hereinabove. The respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of
the rulings laid down in the judgments, as cited above,
within ten days from today."
3. The petitioner's case is covered by the ratio decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2008
passed in WPMS No. 2483 of 2007 (M/s Haldiram Snacks Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) wherein the following
order was passed:
"13. For the reasons as discussed above, this writ
petition is allowed with the following directions:-
1. The impugned order dated 02.11.2007, passed by
respondent No. 3, rejecting the representation of the
petitioner, is hereby quashed, and to that extent, the
writ petition is allowed.
2. The petitioner shall be allowed to move for
restoration of his plot by making application with
prescribed undertaking, bank guarantee of Rs. 5
lakhs, and depositing levy at the rate of 7.5% at the
then prevailing rate (as accepted from the other 29
entrepreneurs) within a period of one month from
today and the restoration of 17 his plot shall be
considered by respondent No. 3 within a period of
two months thereafter, in the manner other 29
entrepreneurs were allowed under policy dated 10th
August 2007, a copy of which is annexure- S.A. 2 to
the supplementary affidavit dated 08.05.2008."
4. At this stage, the only controversy remains is regarding the
demand made by the respondents for restoration of plot at rate of
levy @ 7.5% at the prevalent rate of Rs. 1500/- per sq. m. In the
earlier judgment, the Coordinate Bench observed that SIDCUL
should have demanded a sum of rupees equivalent to 7.5% at the
then prevalent rate i.e. at the time of allotment i.e. Rs. 560 per sq.
m. In the present case, prevalent rate is mentioned as Rs. 1500/-
per sq. m. whereas the then prevalent rate was Rs. 560 per sq. m.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed in part. Annexure
No. 5 letter dated 27.07.2018 is modified to the extent that in
paragraph 1 of the conditions, "Rs. 1500/- per sq. m." should be
read as "Rs. 560/- per sq. m." and rest of the conditions
mentioned in the aforesaid letter shall remain untouched.
Petitioner is at liberty to comply with the requirements within 30
days. On compliance, proper allotment order be passed.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J)
(Copies as per Rules)
SKS
