Gujarat High Court
Indian vs State on 27 January, 2011
Author: K.A.Puj
Bench: K.A.Puj
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2683/2003 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2683 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
INDIAN
PETROCHEMICALS LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
K S NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI ASSOCIATES
for Petitioner) : 1 - 2.
MS
MINI NAIR ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MB
GANDHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 27/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Leave to amend the cause-title of the petition by substituting the name of petitioner No.1 - Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., by placing the name of Reliance Industries Ltd.
2. The petition was originally filed by Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., praying for quashing and setting aside the levy and demand of development charges raised by respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 25/01/1996, 29/08/2002, 03/09/2002, 24/10/2002 and 11/02/2003. The Court has passed an order dated 11/03/2003 directing the respondent No.2 - Corporation not to recover any amount of development charges pursuant to the letter annexed to the petition, the petition was thereafter admitted and Rule was issued on 17/12/2003 and interim-relief was granted in terms of paragraph Nos.4(B) and (C), subject to the condition that petitioner will deposit an amount of Rs.2 Crores with the GIDC within two weeks from the date of the said order.
3. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No.2 - Corporation issued a letter on 31/07/2007. It was inter-alia stated therein that it was decided at Government level to levy development charge at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. from the allottee of land as is where is basis at Dahej. IPCL had objected to payment of the development charge and filed an Special Civil Application in this regard against recovery of development charge. Thereafter, this issue was amicably resolved between GOG/GIDC and IPCL alongwith other issues as listed out in a record note dated 17/09/2005 in respect of two meetings on 21/06/2005 and 26/08/2005. In terms of the above settlement the area of the land for Petrochemical Project (now numbered Plot No.1) was restructured to 681.6194 hectors, including, land under circular road, power corridor, EDP corridor, chemical corridor and new Falia land. Accordingly, IPCL is required to pay the land cost at the originally indicated price with interest, which has paid along with revenue charges upto 31/03/2007. It was also clarified that IPCL will not have any possessory right on the land under the circular road and the power corridor. Accordingly, GIDC will have the possessory right over the land under circular road and the power corridor, although IPCL has paid the land price thereof. For that matter, GIDC will execute lease deed for truncated area excluding land under circular road and the power corridor. It was further stated that IPCL has also paid 100 % development charge @ Rs.20/- per sq. mtr., as per the directives issued by GoG. At the same time, as directed by GoG, GIDC has forgone recovery of interest on the delayed payment of revised development charge @ Rs.20/- per sq. mt. Amounting to RS.1750.84 Lacs on IPCL's assurance to the GoG that IPCL will utilize this amount for construction and maintenance of full-fledged public hospital at Dahej. IPCL may advise to GoG/GIDC about the time-bound programme for construction of the hospital. It is further stated that since the contentious issue of payment of development charge is resolved, IPCL must withdraw the SCA filed in this Court and also arrange to surrender the land outside the circular road to GIDC local office at Dahej. Over and above this, in Clause No.16 it is further stated that the land is being allotted on leasehold basis for a period of 99 years with a condition of further renewal of 99 years for which the lease-deed will be executed on payment of allotment price.
4. Considering the above development subsequent to the filing of the present petition before the Court, an additional affidavit was filed on 17/01/2011 wherein it is inter-alia stated that in spite of the fact that all the payments for allotment price have been paid, the lease-deed is yet not executed. Instead, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 03/06/2010 demanding Rs.19,19,14,058/-, to which the petitioner company give its reply on 17/07/2010. Even thereafter, the lease-deed was not executed. In the concluding paragraph it is stated that the petition challenging the levy of development charges does not survive since the payment has been made which is reflected in the petitioner's letter dated 06/02/2007 and therefore the present proceedings are required to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent - Corporation to execute the lease-deed as per Clause - 16 of the allotment letter dated 31/07/2007 within appropriate time limit as may be decided by this Court.
5. In view of the above development, and after hearing the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K S Nanavati, for the petitioner and Mr.M B Gandhi, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 and Ms.Mini Nair, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State Government, the Court is of the view that so far as the issue involved in the present petition are concerned the same are amicably resolved and the petitioner has already undertaken to construct the hospital and to surrender the land outside the circular road and since the payment of development charge have already been paid, nothing survives in this petition, except a direction to GIDC to execute the lease-deed. However, before that eventuality to take place, on behalf of the GIDC a letter dated 03/06/2010 was issued on IPCL demanding therein transfer fee of Rs.19,19,14,058/-. Technically, it is a new cause of action and does not form the part of present petition. However, it appears that for executing the lease-deed in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd., the respondent - Corporation has demanded the transfer fee.
6. It is undisputed fact that IPCL is merged with the Reliance Industries Ltd., and as on today IPCL does not remain in existence. By virtue of operation of law, the property of IPCL with all rights, titles, etc., in relation to thereof vest in Reliance Industries Ltd. Demand of transfer fee may not be justified looking to the legal position. However the Court cannot issue any direction in this regard. The petitioners have to make appropriate representations in this regard for levy and / or not charging the transfer fee on execution of lease-deed in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd., and if such a representation is made by Reliance Industries Ltd., the same shall be considered in accordance with law and after considering the effect of merger with Reliance Industries Ltd.
7. Subject to the above directions and observations, nothing survives in this petition and it is accordingly disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent without any order as to costs.
(K A PUJ, J.) sompura Top