Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7895 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gajendra Prasad Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
The writ petition is against the order dated 25.1.2018, whereby the petitioner was informed that his application for seeking permission to transfer industrial plot no. K-470 at Industrial Area Surajpur Site-5, has been closed since the petitioner did not comply formalities for the same.
Counsel for respondents-Industrial Development Corporation, submits that they have cancelled the allotment of the said plot and in view thereof, this writ petition has rendered infructuous. He also placed the order of cancellation dated 27.2.2018 on record for our perusal.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will take appropriate remedy against the said order and prayed for disposal of this petition as infructuous.
Though, it was possible to dispose of the writ petition as infructuous in view of subsequent order dated 27.2.2018, we propose to do so by making some observations for consideration of the respondents-Corporation in the light of few undisputed but disturbing facts of the present case. The plot in dispute was allotted to one Patanjali Sharma on 24.4.2003. Within a month of the allotment, Patanjali Sharma applied for transfer of the plot in favour of Rajesh Gupta on 26.5.2003. His application was allowed. Thereafter, the transferee (Rajesh Gupta) some time in 2005 applied for further transfer of the plot to Sachin Gupta. The transfer application was accordingly allowed vide order dated 21.12.2005. Thereafter, again the plot, at the instance of Sachin Gupta, was transferred in favour of the petitioner on 1.9.2007 with permission of the Corporation. The petitioner did not make any development over the plot which was allotted for industrial purpose. He even did not apply for extension of time or execution of a lease deed. It is pertinent to note that without complying formalities, the petitioner on 22.9.2017 applied for further transfer of the plot. In response to his application, he was asked to comply certain formalities and since he did not do so within prescribed period, the impugned order seems to have been passed. From the sequence of events, it is clear that since the date of allotment till today the plot is lying vacant, no industrial unit has either been constructed or commenced production as per the terms and conditions of allotment within the stipulated time. It is also clear that neither the original allottee nor subsequent transferee were ever interested in raising construction of industrial unit and to start production.
The U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation was set up some time in 2003 for development of industrial township expecting allottees of industrial plots not only to construct industrial units but also to run the units and start production. Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, provides for functions of the Authority and amongst other, the functions are to acquire land, to prepare a plan for development and to allocate and transfer either by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots of land for industrial, commercial or residential purposes. From the scheme of the Act, it is clear that this all is for development of certain areas into industrial township and for which the Authority acquire lands, mostly from farmers/agriculturists. The acquisition and allotment to private individuals is for industrial development and in any case not for only investment or for making money out of it. If the allottee fails to start industrial unit within the stipulated time, the very purpose of the Act would stand defeated. As a matter of fact, in our opinion, the original allottee should start industrial unit, in any case, within the stipulated time and for any reason he does not do so, the allotment should be cancelled. The original allottee should show his bona fides by constructing industrial unit and start production.
In this backdrop, from facts, as narrated above, it is clear that for the last 16 years, respondents-Corporation has allowed investors to seek allotment and keep transferring the plot and allowing the allottees and transferees to make profit out of it. This all, we are informed by counsel for respondents-Corporation, was done on the basis of some policy, which permits such transfers of plot. If such a policy is in existence, in our opinion, this is high time for the respondents-Corporation to reconsider/revisit the same in larger interest. We direct respondents-Corporation to place this order before the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks from today for consideration. We hope and trust that the concerned authorities shall take appropriate decision at the earliest and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of this order and till then shall not allow any transfer of plots, which for years are not developed at all.
The petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 RK (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)