Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Riddhi Siddhi Mall Management Private ... vs Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 5 June, 2015
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
05.06.2015
Item No.03
SB
W.P. 13994 (W) of 2012
Riddhi Siddhi Mall Management Private Limited & Anr.
Vs.
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
Mr. A. Mitra,
Mr. S. Bhattacharya,
Mr. B. Kumar...............for the petitioners.
Mr. A. Majumder,
Mr. T. M. Siddique.............for the State.
Mr. P. S. Basu,
Mr. S. Talukdar..............for the K.M.D.A.
A few old buildings of Sealdah Court Complex (Civil and Criminal) at
premises No.1, Beliaghata Road, Kolkata - 700 014 became structurally
unsafe and the State Government had taken a decision to hand over the
land to Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (hereafter KMDA),
the respondent no.1, for enabling the latter to carry out
building/rebuilding of the same. KMDA had designed a scheme for a Court cum Commercial Complex at the premises but the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta by an administrative order had directed KMDA to segregate the Commercial Complex from the Court Complex.
Thereafter, in the year 2006, KMDA took a decision to dispose of the semi-finished commercial complex on 'as is where is basis' through competitive bidding process.
2Pursuant to the notice inviting tender issued by KMDA, the petitioner no.1 was selected and letter of acceptance issued in its favour on 18.10.2006. This letter of acceptance was followed by a development agreement dated 14.11.2007 and a licence agreement of 08.04.2008. The petitioner no.1 has made the entire payment of Rs.34,56,66,789/- within the time period specified therein.
As per the licence, KMDA is to execute a formal registered lease deed for a period of 99 years renewable for a further period of 99 years within six (6) months. The development agreement as well as the licence agreement permits the petitioner no.1 to develop the property in the meantime.
The petitioner no.1 thereafter submitted a building plan to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation which was sanctioned sometime around May, 2008 against payment of sanction fee of Rs.3.74 crores approximately.
The petitioner no.1 met certain resistance in taking possession of the entirety of the subject property and KMDA also issued a notice on 29.07.2008 to stop further activities at the premises. All issues regarding taking over of possession were resolved and KMDA finally on 22.08.2008 issued a possession certificate to the petitioner no.1. This was followed by the petitioner no.1 undertaking substantial building, rebuilding, addition, alteration works as per the sanctioned plan. After the building was completed, it was inaugurated on 02.02.2010 as 'Sealdah Commercial Complex'.
3In the meantime, the petitioners interacted with KMDA officials for execution of the lease deed in terms of the development agreement and the licence agreement. Correspondence enclosed include a letter of 11.05.2010 by which KMDA had acknowledged 'internal procedural delay' in having the lease deed executed. According to the petitioners, the terms of the lease deed had been finally approved and the draft submitted to KMDA under cover of letter dated 19.08.2010 for their formal approval (hereinafter referred to as the 'said draft lease deed'). This has also not been disputed by KMDA. The said draft lease deed has, however, not been executed so far.
According to the petitioners, without a registered lease deed, they are not being able to deal with the built up space constructed at the said premises.
The petitioners claim that they have invested a sum of Rs.35.50 crores for development of the premises apart from the consideration paid to KMDA. The petitioners' case is that they had taken a loan from Central Bank of India for development of the property. According to the petitioners', their repayment obligation comes to Rs.28,99,298/- per month which started from September, 2009.
The case of the respondent nos.1 and 2 (i.e. KMDA) is that they are not in a position to execute the lease deed because the land belongs to the Public Works Department (hereafter the PWD) and KMDA had repeatedly approached the PWD for formal transfer of the land but this has not happened so far. According to the said respondents, they are 4 ready and willing to have the lease deed executed subject to formal transfer of the land by the State Government to KMDA. Considering the stand of KMDA, this Bench had added the Principal Secretary, PWD and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department as respondents. Opportunity was granted by this Bench to both these added respondents to file affidavits-in-opposition. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department on behalf of the respondent no.3 i.e. the Principal Secretary, PWD. In this affidavit, statements have been made to the effect that the PWD i.e. the respondent no.3 is not cooperating with the Land & Land Reforms Department by providing the information that had been asked for by the Land & Land Reforms Department. In the absence of a report from the PWD, the Land & Land Reforms Department claim they are not in a position to permit KMDA to grant the lease. There are also statements in the affidavit to the effect that valuation of the property as done by Price Waterhouse Coopers, who had been engaged by KMDA, was not proper.
From time to time, this Bench has given opportunity to the respondents to look into the matter and resolve the issues. KMDA was also given opportunity to obtain clearance from the other departments for having the lease deed executed. It had been reported by KMDA's advocate that the learned Advocate General for the State of West Bengal is looking into the matter for issuance of appropriate clearance for execution of the lease deed. However, clearance could not be obtained even though the matter had been adjourned repeatedly between 5 January, 2014 and April, 2015 only to enable the clearances to be given by the State for execution of the lease deed.
Finally, this Bench on 24.04.2015 gave one last adjournment on the prayer of the respondents to reach a solution in the matter. The matter has thereafter appeared today when once again it is found that no effective step has been taken by the respondents.
Considering the above facts and especially the fact that the petitioner no.1 as a successful bidder in the above open tender has paid substantial sum of money to KMDA for acquiring the land and has also invested substantial sum of money in the property, and taking into consideration the fact that none of the respondents has been able to attribute any lapse on the part of the petitioners, this Bench is of the view that the respondents should be directed to execute and cause to be registered the approved lease deed that has been forwarded by the petitioners under cover of letter dated 19.08.2010. KMDA through the respondent no.2 is directed to execute and register the said lease deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioner no.1 within a period of twelve weeks from date. The respondent nos.3 and 4 will give requisite clearance and do all things needful for such lease to be executed, within a period of six weeks from date. If no such clearance is given within that time, it will be deemed that the respondent nos.3 and 4 have permitted execution of lease in favour of the petitioner no.1 and that KMDA has full right to effect such transfer.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)