Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28664 of 2009 Petitioner :- M/S Angels Solutions Private Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.N. Roy Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Nisheeth Yadav,Ramendra Pratap Singh,Ravindra Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
(Per Ramesh Sinha,J. for the Bench)
1. Heard Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for contesting respondents no. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1.
2. The petitioner before this Court has come up with the prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 to execute lease deed in respect of industrial plot allotted by the respondent no. 2 in his favour and communicated to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 31st March, 2001.
3. The plot initially allotted to the petitioner was 2000 square meters and the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the total premium amount of the plot within 30 days. The total premium amount of the plot was Rs. 15,50,000/- and accordingly the petitioner deposited 10% of the premium amount vide demand draft dated 17th April, 2001.
4. The allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 24th April, 2001 and the petitioner was to pay installments as per the schedule fixed by the respondent no. 2 in the form of twelve equal installments by 23rd June, 2001. The petitioner deposited the total premium amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- as per the allotment order vide demand draft dated 19th June, 2001.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while the payment of the installment was underway as per the schedule, the area of plot got enhanced by 506.25 square meters and for that the petitioner was required to pay excess amount of Rs. 3,92,344/- and the communication to that effect was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.8.2001. The petitioner paid the necessary amount as per the scheduled fixed by the respondent even in respect of the enhanced area.
6. The petitioner, in the meanwhile was issued with the letter dated 18.6.2004 by the respondents to get the lease deed executed by 30.6.2004. The petitioner, however, vide letter dated 28.7.2004 sought extension of time for execution of lease deed and then again vide letter dated 18.8.2004, he communicated to the respondent no. 3 that on account of on account of personal difficulty he was not in a position to get the lease deed executed. Further vide letter dated 5.12.2007, the petitioner was required to make the deposit of Rs. 1,99,163/- as interest which had, according to the respondents become due after updation of the payment of the deposit made by the petitioner and so the petitioner also make the deposit of Rs. 1,99,163/- vide bank challan dated 13.12.2007 but no receipt regarding payment has been annexed. The said averment regarding payment of interest pursuant to the letter dated 5.12.2007 as stated in para-20 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied and, there is only a vague denial to this effect that “the contents of paragraphs 20 and 21 of the writ petition are false hence emphatically denied”. The petitioner then vide letters dated 12.7.2007 and 5.11.2007 asked the respondent to issue no objection certificate as all the dues, as per the schedule, had already been paid and also requested the respondent to communicate the petitioner with formality that he had to do for the purpose of execution of the lease deed.
7. In the meanwhile a public notice was issued by the respondent no. 1 regarding certain waiver on the payment of stamp duty on the basis of circle rate and the waiver was up till 31.10.2009 only. This document has been brought on record as annexure-16 to the writ petition.
8. The petitioner again approached the respondents for the execution of the lease deed in respect of the industrial plot allotted to him but nothing was done in the matter and, therefore, the petitioner has now approached this Court.
9. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had very sincerely paid all the installment fixed by the respondents as per the schedule and even the interest that was required to be paid by the petitioner was paid well within time. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have not issued no objection certificate and have not responded to his letters dated 12.7.2007 and 5.11.2007 regarding his request for intimation of the formalities to be concluded at the end of the petitioner, the lease deed could not be executed well within time. It is further submitted that the petitioner having paid entire premium amount as required by the respondents and the respondents having not canceled the allotment till date, they are bound in law to get the lease deed executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the same time, submitted that though there was waiver regarding payment of stamp duty, as far as the circle rate is concerned on account of the policy decision taken by the respondents but since much time has elapsed, he is ready to submit stamp duty for the registration of the lease deed as admissible today.
10. Per contra the argument advanced by Sri B.B. Jauhari on behalf of the respondents is that as per the terms and condition of the allotment, the petitioner should have got the lease deed executed as the intimation to that effect was given to him on 18.6.2004 itself, however, he submits that the execution of lease deed and the possession takes place on the deposit of 30% of the total premium amount and there was no bar as far as the execution of lease deed is concerned in the present case. He submits that the petitioner has sought extension of time which was also given to him and, therefore, if the petitioner had himself chosen not to go ahead for the execution of the lease deed of the plot in question, the respondents cannot be held liable for the same. He submits that as far as the exemption is concerned, that was for limited period and now at this stage the same cannot be pressed into service, however, on a pointed query made to the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether the allotment of industrial plot in question has been cancelled or not, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that till date the respondents have not cancelled the allotment letter issued to the petitioner in respect of the industrial plot in question and further submits that there is no issue of payment qua schedules which were given to the petitioner at the time of allotment of the plot.
11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and the arguments advanced across the bar and having gone through the record, we are of the view that since the allotment of industrial plot still exists and the petitioner has already deposited the entire premium amount, there is no dispute regarding payment thereof nor, in respect of any interest due and further in the special facts and circumstances of this case where the petitioner is ready to deposit, we do not find any wrong in directing for execution of lease deed. Accordingly we direct that in case if the petitioner makes necessary application along with certified copy of this order and submits stamp duty as per the present circle rate as admissible in law for the purpose of execution of the lease deed/ registration of lease deed in respect of the plot in question within eight weeks from today, the respondents shall immediately proceed to pass appropriate order requiring the petitioner to carry out the necessary formalities in case if any interest amount has been deposited and there is no legal impediment necessary action in the form of execution of lease deed of the industrial plot in question shall take place at the end of concerned respondent and the petitioner.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019/Nadeem Ahmad (Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)