Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raj State Industrial Developme vs M/S Dcm Limited And Ors on 14 May, 2020
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1194/2007
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation Limited, District
Industries Centre, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
1. M/s DCM Limited, Kanchanchanga" 18, Barakhamba
Road, New Delhi- Proprietor of M/s Shriam Fertilizers &
Chemicals, Shriramnagar, Kota.
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Department
of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Jitendra Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel with Mr. M.S. Rajpurohit, Ms. Alankrita Sharma Mr. Pankaj Choudhary for Mr. Rohit Choudhary, G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J.
14th May 2020 Reportable
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 25.1.07 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner-Delhi Cloth Mills Limited ('the petitioner-Company') assailing the demand of (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (2 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] Rs.122.29 lacs raised by the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited ('RIICO'), towards economic rent, service charges and interest against the lands allotted to the petitioner-Company at Large Scale Industrial Area, Kota and seeking direction for release of original lease deed dated 3.1.64 and other documents relating to land leased out to the petitioner- Company, has been allowed.
2. The facts relevant in nutshell are that the petitioner, a public limited company, formerly known as Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, was allotted 430.8 acres of land by the State Government for establishing Vinyl and Chemical Industries in Kota on lease hold basis for a period of 99 years on annual rent of Rs.12,924/- and accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 25.8.61. In pursuance of the lease deed executed, the petitioner- Company deposited a sum of Rs.1,29,240/- by way of development charges with the State Government in accordance with provisions of Rule 3(ii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules of 1959' hereinafter). The possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner-Company on which the industries were established as proposed. Later, a fresh lease deed was executed between the petitioner-Company and the State Government on 3.1.64, as earlier the lease deed had not been properly executed. The petitioner-Company required more land for the purpose of setting up a fertilizer industry and other allied industries and therefore, pursuant to the allotment made yet another lease deed dated 1.7.67 was executed between the petitioner-Company and the State Government for an area of 1454 bighs and 10 biswas of land equivalent to 581-96 acres, situated opposite Rajpura Talab in (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (3 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] Industrial Area, Kota. The said lease deed was also executed for a period of 99 years, on yearly rent Rs.17,458.80 @ Rs.30 per acre. The petitioner-Company deposited development charges a sum of Rs.8,72,940/- @ Rs.1500 per acre. Thereafter, the petitioner- Company continue to deposit lease rent regularly in Tehsil Ladpura, as directed by the District Collector vide letter dated 14.6.68.
3. In the year 1969, Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation ('RSIMDC'), a Government enterprise, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which was later bifurcated into RIICO and Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation ('RSMDC').
4. The various industrial areas of the State including Large Scale Industrial Area, Kota were transferred by the State Government to RIICO. Vide communication dated 4.2.81 issued by the Deputy Director, RIICO, the petitioner's company Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited, Kota, was informed that according to the decision dated 6.2.80 of Board of Directors of RIICO, the petitioner-Company is required to deposit service charges for the year 1980 and 1981, a sum of Rs.87,409.78, calculated @ 12 paise per sq. meter/per annum, which was followed by a reminder dated 17.3.81. The General Manager, M/s Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited responded to the said letter of RIICO, vide letter dated 27.3.81, seeking complete details and reference etc. pertaining to service charges to enable him to examine the claim.
5. In the meantime, by way of Rajasthan Industrial Area Allotment (Amendment) Rules, 1982, vide notification dated (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (4 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] 13.7.82 published in Rajasthan Gazette on 15.7.82, Rule 12 was inserted in the Rules of 1959, which reads as under :
12. Allotment of land by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation.- The Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur shall be empowered to make allotment in accordance with the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 of vacant plots to entrepreneurs in the Industrial Areas, notified by the State Government and transferred to the said Corporation.
The Corporation shall also be authorised to execute lease deeds, realise development charges, lease rent and other dues from the entrepreneurs to whom plots have already been allotted in accordance with the provisions of these rules, and to take any consequential or residuary action in regard to the plots allotted to the entrepreneurs.
Later, vide Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment (Amendment) Rules, 1983, proviso to Rule 12 was added by notification dated 23.12.83 published in Rajasthan Gazette on 2.1.84, as under :
"Provided that the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., shall be empowered to grant written permission to the lessee for transfer of rights or interest in the land in respect of the plots/land located in the Industrial Areas notified by the State Government and transferred to the said Corporation.
Provided further that any permission granted or action taken for transfer of rights or interest in the plots/land by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., after 13- 7-82 in respect of the plots/land situated in the Industrial Areas and transferred to the said Corporation shall be deemed to be valid under the first proviso to this rule."
6. In the year 1986, the General Manager of Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited received a demand notice dated 28.1.86 (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (5 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] issued by the Regional Manager, RIICO, Kota, whereby a demand of Rs.18,04,810/- towards economic rent, service charges and lease rent for 8 years was raised, which was responded by the General Manager of Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited, Kota, whereby it was intimated that as per the conditions of the lease deeds dated 3.1.64 and 1.7.67, the development charges was paid and the lease rent is also being regularly deposited and the petitioner-Company is not liable to make any further payment. M/s Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals, Kota, received yet another demand notice dated 27.4.87 raising a demand of Rs.59,64,702.58 towards the economic rent, service charges and lease rent, which was responded on behalf of the petitioner- Company vide communication dated 5.5.87 informing that no amount was due from the petitioner-Company and therefore, the demand should be withdrawn.
7. In the month of July, 1988, the petitioner-Company required the original lease deed dated 3.1.64 in connection with creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds of their lease lands at Kota in favour of Industrial Finance Corporation Limited ('IFC'). Original lease deed was lying with the RIICO and therefore, the petitioner- Company approached the Regional Manager, RIICO to deliver the original lease deed, who expressed his inability to deliver the lease deed without approval of their Head Office at Jaipur. The petitioner-Company further intimated that on being approached by the financial institution, the lease deed may be sent to them directly. The IFC had also written to the Regional Manager, Kota to send original lease deed of the petitioner-Company to them. Accordingly, the Regional Manager, RIICO, referred the matter to the Head Office, RIICO, for approval. The lease deed was not sent (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (6 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] to the IFC by the RIICO for sufficiently long time and therefore, the petitioner-Company approached General Manager, RIICO to do the needful, who in his turn informed that the lease deed could be sent to IFC on the petitioner discharging the demand of Rs.122.29 lacs. The Regional Manager, RIICO, issued a demand notice dated 10.8.88 to the General Manager, Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals to deposit outstanding dues of Rs.122.29 lacs against the lands allotted to the DCM Group of Companies, towards economic rent, service charges and interest. The copy of the said demand notice was also endorsed to Manager (Law), IFC. The General Manager, Shriram Fertilizer and Chemicals, vide letter dated 12.9.88 represented against the demand raised and prayed for withdrawal thereof. The petitioner-Company served the RIICO with notice for demand of justice through its counsel, dated 7.12.88, but to no avail. In these circumstances, the petitioner-Company preferred the writ petition before this Court with the prayer as aforesaid, which stands allowed by the order impugned.
8. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioner-Company was that the demand raised by the RIICO was based on misinterpretation of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959. The petitioner- Company was allotted the land under the Rules of 1959 and the terms and conditions were expressly laid down in the lease deed dated 3.1.1964 and 1.7.1967, which were duly complied with and thus, the RIICO had no jurisdiction to raise the demand towards economic rent and service charges. According to the petitioner- Company, as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, the development charges, lease rent and other dues by the RIICO were permissible to be realised only from the entrepreneurs to whom vacant plots in the Industrial area transferred by the State Government, were (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (7 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] allotted by the RIICO. It was further contended that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 cannot be made applicable retrospectively so as to cover the cases of the entrepreneurs, who had already been allotted the land by the State Government and lease deeds were executed in their favour and the liability to make payment in terms of the lease had already been discharged.
9. On the other hand, the RIICO contended that it is fully authorised to realise the dues even from those entrepreneurs to whom plots had already been allotted under the Rules of 1959 and therefore, the petitioner-Company is under an obligation to pay the development charges and other dues after incorporation of Rule 12 in the Rules of 1959, notwithstanding that they had already paid the development charges and other dues as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed.
10. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the rival submissions, arrived at the conclusion that under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, the RIICO has been authorised to make allotment of vacant plots to the entrepreneurs in accordance with Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (for short "the Rules of 1979") and as per the amended provision introduced, it had further been authorised to execute lease deeds, realise development charges, lease rent and other dues from the entrepreneurs to whom plots had already been allotted in accordance with the Rules of 1979. The learned Single Judge opined that Rule 12 cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the authority of RIICO would extend to even those plots which were not vacant and were allotted even prior to formation of RIICO like the petitioner- Company, which was allotted plots in the year 1961 and 1967. The (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (8 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] Court observed that in absence of expressed terms and conditions in the lease deed regarding future development charges, the RIICO which itself came in existence much later in the year 1979 cannot be held authorised to levy development charges by interpreting the amendment introduced and made effective in the year 1984.
11. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the RIICO reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge, submitted that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 consists of two parts; the first thereof empowers the RIICO to make allotment of vacant plots in the industrial area transferred to it, in accordance with the Rules of 1979 whereas, the second part authorises RIICO to execute lease deeds, realise development charges, lease rent and other dues from the entrepreneurs to whom plots had already been allotted in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1959 and thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge ignoring this aspect of the matter, is ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that second part of Rule 12, in no manner relates to the plots allotted by the RIICO in the industrial area in accordance with Rules of 1979. Learned counsel submitted that under Rule 9A of the Rules of 1979, the RIICO is empowered to extend the period of lease of the plots allotted in the industrial area subject to payment of economic rent, service charges and other dues and furnishing an undertaking on a non judicial stamp paper that the lessee shall abide by the Rules of 1979. Drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 15A of the Rules of 1979, learned counsel submitted that the service charges as imposed are payable by the allottees in addition to the economic rent, which would be applicable also to (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (9 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] the entrepreneurs, who were allotted the plots in the industrial area under the Rules of 1959, which now stands transferred to RIICO and thus, the demand created by the RIICO in conformity with the provisions of Rule 12 read with Rule 9A and Rule 15A was absolutely justified. Learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 1(c), the Rules of 1979 are applicable to all the lands transferred to or placed at the disposal of the RIICO by the State Government and the lands purchased or acquired or otherwise held by RIICO and therefore, the petitioner-Company, cannot be permitted to contend that the lands held by it which admittedly fall within the industrial area transferred to RIICO by the State Government, are not governed by the Rules of 1979. Learned counsel submitted that as laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Kota Steel Rerolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: WLN 1996 (2) 493, the RIICO is authorised to realise service charges and other dues even in respect of the plots already allotted under the Rules of 1959 and its application cannot be confined only to the plots allotted after coming into force of the Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 and therefore, the intra court appeal deserves to be allowed.
12. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company submitted that the terms and conditions of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-Company shall be governed by the lease deed executed between the parties and the petitioner-Company cannot be made liable to any additional charges on account of the industrial area being subsequently transferred by the State Government to the RIICO. Learned counsel submitted that a plain reading of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, makes it abundantly clear that the RIICO is authorised to (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (10 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] levy development charges, lease rent and other dues only from the entrepreneurs, who have been allotted the vacant plots under the Rules of 1979 and not from the entrepreneurs, in whose favour pursuant to the allotment made, the lease deeds have already been executed and they have already discharged the liability flowing from the terms and conditions incorporated therein. Learned counsel would submit that the lands which had already been transferred by the State Government to the entrepreneurs under the Rules of 1959 and which are not so transferred under the Rules of 1979, the provisions of levy of development charges, economic rent, services charges and other dues as applicable to the lands governed by the Rules of 1979, cannot be made applicable. Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 1979 are not statutory and the same cannot govern the allotments already made and the lease deed already executed under the Rules of 1959. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of the plots allotted under the Rules of 1959, any imposition of liability has to be authorised by law or must flow from the contract between the parties. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rules 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5 & 6 of the Rules of 1959, learned counsel submitted that the period of lease, development charges, price of the land, rate of rent to be charged, the revision of rent etc. in respect of the lease lands are governed by the said provisions incorporated in the Rules of 1959 and therefore, the question of creation of any additional liability against the petitioner-Company in respect of the lands leased out to it under the Rules of 1959, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that even the allotment of the land to RIICO for setting up and developing industrial area is governed by Rule 11A of the (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (11 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] Rules of 1959 and the RIICO has no authority to travel beyond the terms and conditions incorporated in this regard in the said rule. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, only governs the vacant plots to be allotted by RIICO in the industrial area transferred to it by the State Government and therefore, under the garb of the said provision, the RIICO cannot create any liability against the land already leased out for 99 years under the Rules of 1959 before the transfer of the industrial area. Learned counsel submitted that the development charges, service charges etc. if any levied in respect of the plots already allotted under the Rules of 1959, the same would be in conflict with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1959. Replying the arguments raised on behalf of the RIICO, on the strength of Rule 9A, learned counsel submitted that the said provision is applicable only in respect of the land which was leased out for 30 years and on expiry of the period of the lease, the lease period is required to be further extended for 69 years. Similarly, in respect of Rule 15A of the Rules of 1979 relied upon by the counsel for the RIICO, learned counsel submitted that the said rule regarding levy of service charges would also be applicable in respect of the land disposed of under the Rules of 1979, where the economic rent is payable and further liability of service charges is created and not in respect of the lands already allotted by the State Government under the Rules of 1959. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court at Principal Seat in M/s. Seth Nandram Daulat Ram Biyani vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3581/2002, decided on 6.1.2005). Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 1959, a subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect and therefore, the Rule 12 as framed, (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (12 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] cannot be applied retrospectively so as to create additional liability for the first time in respect of the concluded transactions. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries vs. Union of India : (2017) 16 SCC 186.
13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
14. Indisputably, the petitioner- Company was allotted the lands in question under the Rules of 1959 in the Industrial area developed by the State Government for setting up industries at Kota. As per Rule 2 of the Rules of 1959, a land in Industrial area may be allotted on leasehold basis for a period of 99 years for setting up a large scale industry anywhere in the State by the State Government in Industries Department, for setting up other Industries in Jaipur District by the Director of Industries and in any other district by the Collector concerned. As per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1959, the land leased out for a period of 99 years at the instance of the lessee is further renewable for a period of 99 years at the option of the lessee. The premium to be charged by way of development charges from the lessee is governed by Rule 3 of the Rules of 1959. Rule 3A provides for the price of the land to be charged in case of allotment of the Government agriculture land in Industrial area. Rule 5 and Rule 6 provide for 'rate of rent' to be charged and 'revision of rent' respectively. Suffice it to say that all the terms and conditions of the allotment of land in Industrial area developed by the State Government for setting up the industries at the relevant time, were governed by the provisions of the statutory rules i.e. Rules of 1959 framed by the State Government (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (13 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 100 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
15. It is also not in dispute that the lease deeds of the lands allotted under the Rules of 1959 for a period of 99 years were executed between the petitioner-Company and the State Government on 3.1.1964 and 1.7.1967. It is also a common ground between the parties that pursuant to the lease deeds executed, the petitioner-Company had deposited the development charges and other dues with the State Government, the annual rent in terms of the Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules of 1959 is being deposited by the petitioner-Company regularly and as per the terms and conditions set out in the lease deeds executed, the petitioner-Company was not liable to make any further payment.
16. Admittedly, on Large Scale Industrial Area, Kota being transferred by the State Government to the RIICO, in the first instance the service charges for the year 1980-81 quantified at Rs.87,409.78 was demanded by the RIICO from the petitioner- Company by demand notice dated 4.2.81 followed by reminder dated 17.3.81, possibly under the assumption that after transfer of the Industrial area as aforesaid, the RIICO is entitled to realise service charges under the Rules of 1979 from the entrepreneurs occupying the land in the Industrial area pursuant to the allotments already made under the Rules of 1959 as well. It is pertinent to note that Rule 12 was inserted in the Rules of 1959 by way of Rajasthan Industrial Allotment (Amendment) Rules, 1982 vide notification dated 13.7.82 published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 15.7.82, which was further amended and proviso to Rule 12 was added vide notification dated 23.12.83 published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 2.1.84. Thereafter, vide notice dated (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (14 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] 28.1.86, the demand of Rs. 18,04,810/- was raised by the RIICO against the petitioner-Company towards the economic rent, service charges and lease rent for a period of 8 years in purported exercise of the power conferred under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, which was further augmented to Rs.59,64,702.58 vide demand notice dated 27.4.87.
17. Precisely, the stand of the RIICO before the learned Single Judge was that in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959, the RIICO is entitled to realise development charges, lease rent and other dues from the entrepreneurs to whom plots have already been allotted in accordance with the Rules of 1959 and further to take any consequential and residuary action in regard to the plots allotted to the entrepreneurs. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the RIICO that the Rule 12 sans of the proviso consists of two parts; the first part thereof deals with disposal of the vacant plots in the Industrial area in accordance with the Rules of 1979 or any other rules framed by the RIICO, whereas, the second part relates to execution of the lease deeds, lease rent and other dues from the entrepreneurs to whom plots have already been allotted by the State Government under the Rules of 1959. The learned Single Judge has opined that "these rules" in the second part of Rule 12 refers to Rules of 1979 as mentioned in the first part and not the Rules of 1959, which in our considered opinion is not correct.
18. Undoubtedly, in terms of Rule 12, the plots lying vacant in the Industrial area notified and transferred by the State Government to the RIICO are open to be allotted by the RIICO in accordance with the Rules of 1979 or any other rules framed by the RIICO in this regard. But then, the lands already allotted by (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (15 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] the State Government under the Rules of 1959 shall be governed by the Rules of 1959 and the terms and conditions of the lease deed executed between the parties. The second part of the Rule 12 heavily relied upon by the RIICO only deals with the execution of the lease deeds, realisation of the development charges, lease rent and other dues from the entrepreneurs whom the plots had already been allotted by the State Government in accordance with the Rules of 1959, but the lease deed as required was not executed and/or the development charges, lease rent and other dues were not already paid. Thus, by virtue of Rule 12, the RIICO is entitled to execute the lease deed and realise unpaid development charges, lease rent or other dues payable in terms of the Rules of 1959, which have not been paid by the entrepreneurs who have been allotted the land by the State Government prior to transfer of the Industrial area in question by the State Government to the RIICO. We are firmly of the opinion that Rule 12 has no application whatsoever in respect of the concluded contract where the lease deed had already been executed and the development charges, lease rent and other dues payable in terms of the Rules of 1959 or as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, have already been paid. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 as framed has no retrospective application and as a matter of fact, no such rule creating additional liability could have been framed by the State Government in respect of the lands governed by the lease deeds already executed under the Rules of 1959 after payment of the premium and other dues as provided for.
(Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(16 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007]
19. It is pertinent to note that RIICO is only a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and the Rules of 1979 framed by it in exercise of power conferred by Article 93 (xv) of its Articles of Association has no statutory force and therefore, the said rules framed for disposal of the lands transferred or placed at the disposal of the RIICO by the State Government and the lands purchased or acquired or otherwise held by the RIICO cannot govern the lands leased out to the entrepreneurs under a concluded contract under the provisions of the Rules of 1959. To be precise, the entrepreneurs who have been allotted the land under the Rules of 1959 before transfer of the Industrial area by the State Government to the RIICO cannot be saddled with any additional liability dehors the Rules of 1959 or the terms and conditions of the lease deed in the garb of Rules of 1979 framed by the RIICO as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company was absolutely justified in contending that in respect of the plot allotted under the Rules of 1959, any imposition of the liability has to be authorised by law and must flow from the contract between the parties. Merely because, the Industrial area stands transferred to RIICO, no liability can be imposed upon the petitioner-Company dehors the Rules of 1959 and the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease deed.
20. Coming to Rule 9 (A) of the Rules of 1979, it is noticed that it regulates the renewal of the lease period in respect of the transfer of Industrial area and estates. A perusal of the said rule makes it abundantly clear that it applies only to the lands which were leased out for a period of 30 years and the lease period is required to be extended for a period of 69 years and not in case where the lands under the Rules of 1959 had already been leased (Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (17 of 17) [SAW-1194/2007] out to the entrepreneurs by the State Government for a period of 99 years in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1959. Thus, as discussed above, firstly, the Rules of 1979 cannot be made applicable to the concluded contracts under the Rules of 1959 and secondly, the said rule as framed does not cover in any manner the lands which were allotted under the Rules of 1959 for a period of 99 years and the lease period thereof is liable to be further renewed for a period of 99 years in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1959. For the parity of reasons, Rule 15 (A) of the Rules of 1979 relied upon by the counsel for the RIICO for realisation of the service charges is also not applicable to the lands in question governed by the lease deed executed by the State Government under the Rules of 1959 before the transfer of the Industrial area to the RIICO.
21. Lastly, coming to the decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Seth Nandram Daulat Ram Biyani's case (supra) holding that the RIICO is authorised to realise service charges and other dues even in respect of the plots which have already been allotted and other charges could be realised from the date Rule 12 has come into force even if the allotment is made earlier to the said rule, for the reasons assigned by us herein above, in our view, does not lay down the correct law.
22. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya/
(Downloaded on 19/05/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)