AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar, J
1) The petitioners, three in number, are transport companies who had been operating in Srinagar City and were directed to be shifted to Truck Terminal, Parimpora, pursuant to a policy decision taken by the respondents. They are aggrieved and have called in question order No.SDA/VC/366 of 2011 dated 10th March, 2011, passed by respondent No.2, whereby the letters of intent issued in favour of the petitioners proposing to allot 3 kanals of land situated at Truck Terminal, Parimpora, Srinagar, have been cancelled and the part payment deposited by the petitioners forfeited.
2) The impugned order is assailed on multiple grounds but before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it would be appropriate to set out few facts as are germane to the disposal of the controversy raised in this writ petition.
3) In the year 2003, a policy decision was taken by the Government to decongest the City and shift the transport agencies to Truck Terminal, Parimpora. In the meeting that was convened by the then Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department with the office bearers of Transport Companies Association, it was decided that all the eligible transport companies shall be offered plots at Parimpora by Srinagar Development Authority and those who are offered such plots shall convey their acceptance in writing along with bank draft/pay order of Rs.50,000/ payable in favour of Srinagar Development Authority on or before 15th
September, 2003. The size of plots to be allotted to each company shall be decided on the basis of the size of godowns of these companies in the City as per the survey conducted by the Srinagar Development Department. It was also decided that the transport companies shall be handed over the blank lease deed forms after receipt of initial amount of Rs.50,000/, which these companies were to fill up, sign and submit to Srinagar Development Authority on or before 30th September, 2003. There were other decisions taken in the said meeting.
4) Pursuant to the decision taken in the aforesaid meeting, 5400 sft. plot was identified to be allotted to the petitioners at Truck Terminal, Parimpora. Accordingly letters of intent dated 12th June, 2004 came to be issued by Srinagar Development Authority intimating to the petitioners that the Authority has considered allotment of plots in their favour subject to furnishing of certain documents including the Permanent Residence Certificate [“PRC”] of the Directors/partners/proprietors. It was mentioned in the letters of intent that the plots would be allotted on lease for a period of 40 years initially and thereafter renewable as per Land Grants Act. It was also provided that the petitioners shall have to raise godowns/offices on the allotted plot as per the drawings approved in this behalf by Srinagar Development Authority and they shall have to shift from the existing place upto October, 2004. The total premium of the plot was fixed at Rs.6.50 lacs which was payable by the petitioners in the following manner:
a) First instalment
b) Second instalment after six months of execution of agreement =Rs.50,000/ =Rs.50,000/
c) Balance Rs.5.50 lacs in six monthly equated interest free instalments.
In addition to the aforesaid premium, the petitioners were also obliged to pay ground rent @Rs.2000/.
5) It seems that the petitioners, pursuant to the letters of intent and without there being any formal allotment, were handed over the possession of the plots and even permitted to raise construction. The petitioners, who were supposed to submit the requisitioned documents including PRC, could not produce the PRC for the reason they were not the permanent residents of the State. This created a problem in the execution of the lease deed. Srinagar Development Authority was of the opinion that it was not permissible in law for them to enter into a lease agreement with the petitioners who were not possessed of PRC. The Srinagar Development Authority, however, took up the matter with the Administrative Department for entering into lease agreement with the petitioners after relaxing restriction in the interest of Industrial and Commercial Development, as is provided under the J&K Land Grants Act, 1960.
6) Be that as it may, the matter remained stuck as the Administrative Department took no decision with regard to execution of the lease agreement. Taking benefit of this situation, the petitioners occupied the plots, raised construction but did not pay the balance amount of premium. This continued till the year 2007 when Srinagar Development Authority woke up from the slumber and issued show cause notice to the petitioners asking them to explain as to why the letters of intent issued in their favour should not be withdrawn and the plots handed over to them resumed. This was done by Director, Land Management of Srinagar Development Authority vide his show cause notice dated 14th March, 2007.
7) The show cause notice (supra) was replied by the petitioners, as is borne out from their communication dated 12thApril, 2007.The Srinagar Development Authority took no decision for almost four years on the reply submitted to the show cause notice. It was only in the year 2011 that in terms of impugned order, the letters of intent issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled and the plots along with structures raised therein were resumed. It is this order of the Srinagar Development Authority which is called in question in this petition.
8) The impugned order is assailed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(i) That proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the petitioners before passing the order;
(ii) That the reply submitted to the show cause notice by the petitioners was not adverted to and considered by Srinagar Development Authority before passing the impugned order;
(iii) That the petitioners could not and did not deposit the balance premium for the reason that the same was payable only after execution of the lease agreement. The petitioners were ready to execute the lease agreement but the Srinagar Development Authority showed its inability to execute such agreement with non-residents of the State and the Administrative Department, to whom the matter was referred by the Srinagar Development Authority, also did not take any decision;
(iv) That the other allegations made in the show cause notice were factually incorrect and a specific reply submitted thereto was not considered by the Srinagar Development Authority;
9) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have derived benefits out of the subject land more than their investment and have been adequately compensated for the shifting of their business premises from Srinagar City to Truck Terminal, Parimpora. It is true that with a view to rehabilitating the petitioners who were shifted from Srinagar City, a policy decision was taken by the Government to allot them plots of requisite size so as a start their business afresh. As is apparent from the record note of the discussion which took place between the petitioners through their Association and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the petitioners were intimated to show their consent for allotment of such plots by depositing Rs.50,000/. This was done by all the three petitioners. The next step was to execute the lease deeds by or before 30th September, 2003. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were specifically conveyed through letters of intent issued on 12th June, 2004, that the plots have been identified for their allotment to the petitioners subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the letters of intent.Apart from other terms and conditions, the submission of PRC of the Directors/partners/ proprietors was sine qua non for formal allotment of land. There were other conditions with regard to payment of premium which have been adverted to hereinabove.
10) It is true that a formal lease agreement between the petitioners and Srinagar Development Authority could not be executed due to non-availability of PRC with the petitioners. However, awaiting decision in this regard by the Government, the petitioners were put in possession of the plots and were even permitted to raise construction. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners entered into possession of the plots and raised construction of godowns etc. One of the petitioners, as is admitted by him, has even gone to the extent of renting out the godown/office constructed by him to Airtel etc. and made money out of it. He chose not to deposit the second instalment and even the balance premium was not paid during all these years. It is, of course, not paid on the pretext that as per letters of intent, the amount was payable on the execution of lease agreement.
11) As noted above, the Srinagar Development Authority having shown its inability to execute the lease agreement with the petitioners, submitted the file to the Government for granting relaxation and entering into lease agreement with the petitioners. As is usual with the Government, the file remained pending and no decision in this regard was taken. This omission on the part of the Government to take a decision in the matter, inured to the benefit of the petitioners to continue to enjoy the possession of 3 kanals of land on payment of Rs.1.50 lacs only. They even succeeded in raising construction and making money out of it by renting out the property to one Prince Transport Company and Jhelum Carrying Corporation Pvt. Limited. Even one of the petitioners had refused to shift from its earlier location in the City. The terms and conditions of the letters of intent as also the decision taken in the meeting held on 26thAugust, 2003, have been observed in breach by the petitioners. It is true that there is negligence and laxity on the part of the Government also. From perusal of the record and the facts and circumstances emerging from the pleadings of the parties, the collusion between the petitioners and the respondent Authorities also cannot be ruled out. It is not forthcoming as to why the show cause notice issued in the year 2007 and replied by the petitioners in the same year was taken up for final consideration only in the year 2011. The petitioners have, undoubtedly, taken benefit of unhappily worded letters of intent and the vague terms and conditions laid down therein.
12) Be that as it may, the fact remains that the possession handed over to the petitioners was temporary and was subject to production of certain documents including PRC, which the petitioners failed to produce. It is also not disputed before me that at no point of time, formal order of allotment was even issued in favour of the petitioners, not to speak of execution of lease agreement. Taking benefit of this chaotic situation created by none other than the respondents, the petitioners enjoyed possession for almost seven years. Anyway the respondents woke up from slumber in the year 2007 and ultimately in the year 2011, not only withdrew the letters of intent issued in favour of the petitioners but also resumed possession of the plots. Better late than never.
13) Viewed from any angle, I do not see any equities tilting in favour of the petitioners, though they may be justified in pressing into service the technical plea that it was because of omission on the part of respondents to execute the lease agreement, they did not pay the balance premium. There is, however, no plausible explanation given by the petitioners as to why construction raised by them on the allotted plots was not used by them for operating their transport agencies and was rather let out for commercial purposes. There is also no explanation as to why despite having been put in possession of the alternate land at Truck Terminal, Parimpora, one of the petitioners was still occupying his premises in Srinagar city. The petitioners have not acted fairly and, therefore, are not entitled to seek equitable relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.
15) Record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.