Before :- Mrs. R. Banumathi, Mr. A.S. Bopanna and Mr. Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28515 of 2018. D/d. 24.10.2019.
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. - Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Diamond General Trading - Respondents
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mr. Ankit Agarwal and Mr. Amartya Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. R. Basant,Sr.Advocate, Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J. - This Special Leave Petition arises out of judgment and order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in F.A.F.O. No.689 of 2018, whereby and where under the order dated 19.01.2018 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad was set aside by the Appellate Court. The Original Court by its Order dated 19.01.2018 (P/25) in the Original Suit No.483 of 2017 declined temporary injunction to the respondent-plaintiff.
2. We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The necessary facts in brief are as follows: The respondent was allotted Plot No.D-20 and E-170 measuring 3109.58 sq.mts. situated in Kavi Nagar Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, and a registered agreement was executed on 20.10.1993, in favour of the respondent by the petitioner i.e. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Pursuant to the request made by the respondent, the two allotted plots were converted into three plots i.e. Plot No.1 measuring an area of 1186.10 sq.meters; Plot No.2 measuring an area of 923.80 sq.meters and Plot No.3 measuring an area of 997.37 sq.meters, respectively. After conversion, the middle plot i.e. Plot No.2 was permitted for commercial use.
4. There is no dispute that the allottee was granted permission by the petitioner-Corporation to construct and run a hotel/banquet hall and restaurant on Plot No.2 on payment of conversion charges. The contention in this proceeding is confirmed therefore to Plot No.1 and Plot No.3.
5. From the face of the impugned order it can be seen that before the High Court the counsel representing the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. had conceded to consider the plea for change of use and accept the charges for conversion of Plot No.1 and Plot No.3. The High Court accordingly quantified the conversion charge. The relevant part of the Order of the High Court reads as under:
"28. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel accepts that in case the plaintiff-appellant deposits the conversion charges as demanded within a reasonable time allowed by the court, the defendant-respondent would consider the request appropriately as the purpose is not to harass or cause loss to the plaintiff-appellant.
29. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the dispute in substance is confined to the payment of the above L 4,03,96,309/- as conversion charges and to nothing else. The plaintiff-appellant is ready and willing to pay the said amount but in instalments within reasonable time and the defendant-respondent is inclined to accept the same so as to regularise the breach, if any, in the conditions of lease by considering the request for conversion of land use.
30. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 is unsustainable. It is accordingly, set aside with the direction to the plaintiff-appellant to deposit ( L 4,36,78,409- L 32,82,100)= L 4,03,96,309/- in 4 equal instalments to be paid/deposited on every two months commencing from 1st of June,2018. The 1st instalment shall be paid/deposited on or before 10th June,2018, 2nd on or before 10th August, 2018 and so on.
31. On deposit of the 1st instalment the seal of the property would be removed and the plaintiff-appellant would be allowed use the land.
32. The defendant-respondent shall consider the request of the plaintiff-appellant for the change of the land use of the plots No.1 and 3 in accordance with law most expeditiously if possible within six weeks from today."
6. Adverting to the above, Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in pursuance of the said interim direction in the High Court, the respondent-plaintiff has already deposited the first and the second instalments but the petitioner- Corporation is yet to unseal the suit property and has not permitted the respondent-plaintiff to use the allotted plots. In fact, since all the three allotted plots have been sealed by the petitioner-Corporation, the respondent is unable to conduct the hotel/banquet and restaurant business also on Plot No.2, although this plot is not part of the dispute.
7. The order under challenge makes it clear that it was in the nature of an agreed order on concession being made before the High Court by the counsel representing the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Therefore we are of the considered view that interference with the said order would not be justified.
8. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner-Corporation shall unseal the Suit property in terms of the impugned order of the High Court, within ten days from today;
(ii) The respondent shall remit the remaining two instalments, first of which should be paid by 31st January, 2020 and the 4th and the final instalment be paid on or before 30th April, 2020.
(iii) Since the respondent has earlier paid two instalments towards the conversion charges and is ready to pay the balance two instalments, the petitioner-Corporation shall pass orders for formalising the conversion of Plot No(s) 1 and 3, within six weeks of deposit of the final instalments, by the respondent.
9. With the above order the matter is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
