Judgment:
1 W.P. No. 1701 Of 2013 21.3.2013 Shri Girish Kekre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Orders dated 13.8.2012 and 15.1.2013 are being assailed vide this petition.
By order dated 13.8.2012, Managing Director, M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Jabalpur) LTD. cancelled the allotment of Industrial Plot No. 2 and 3 situated at Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre (IIDC). Industrial Area, Lamtara district Katni for the reasons assigned therein that the petitioner violated clauses 3, 7 (A), 7 (B) and 19 of the leasedeed dated 15.9.2010.
The order has been purportedly passed in exercise of powers conferred vide clause 34 of the leasedeed. Whereas, by order dated 15.1.2013 an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation has been dismissed.
By letter of intent dated 15.6.2007, it was proposed to allot plot Nos. 2 and 3 in IIDC area, Lamtara, Katni, admeasuring 20 x 35 m x 2 m admeasuring 1400 sq. meter (i.e., 15064 sq. ft.) area of land being 0.346 Acre, 0.140 Hectares for setting up Daal Mill industry.
2 Besides other terms and conditions, clause 6 of letter of intent clearly stipulated that the allottee will complete the formalities of executing and registering the lease deed and taking over the possession of plot within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment order. An allotment order was issued on 10.9.2007; whereon, the above two plots were alloted to the petitioner with the stipulation to execute the leasedeed within one month from the date of issue of letter with a direction the registered documents in quadruplicate along with the original be deposited within the said period. It was further stipulated by said allotment order that in case formalities are not completed within the time, the allotment order will be liable to be cancelled.
The petitioner instead of getting the leasedeed executed within one month from the date of issuance of allotment order, i.e. 10.9.2007 got the lease executed after more than three years from the date of issuance of allotment order, i.e., 10.9.2007 got the lease executed on 15th September, 2010 and got the same registered on 30th November 2010. Clause 1 (A) of the lease deed clearly stipulated that “the lessee hereby agrees to take possession of the land lease out to him within thirty days from the date of execution of the lease deed and he further agrees to take possession of the land in the condition it exist on that date.”
. Furthermore Clause 3 of the deed stipulated that “If the yearly/Monthly rent of the land/premises and annual development fund for maintenance of industrial area or any part thereof is No. paid within one month after the date prescribed by the Managing Director, M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (J) Ltd., Jabalpur the same will 3 have to be deposited with interest @ 18 % per annum for the first one year 12 months of such default and @ 24 % per annum the remaining period thereafter.”
That, clauses 7 (A) and 7 (B) respectively stipulated: “7 (A) THE LESSEE hereby agrees that he shall within a period of one year, being the small scale industry/three yeaRs. being the Medium/Large Scale Industry from the date of taking over possession of the land, shall commence commercial production.
7 (B) THE LESSEE hereby agrees that he shall utilise the complete land leased out to him hereunder for implementation of project or for its expansion within a period of 3 years in case of SSI and five years in case of Medium/Large Scale Industry for the above said purpose, from the date of taking possession of the land.”
Furthermore clause 19 stipulates that: “19.
THE LESSEE shall continuously run, during the period of lease, the factory for which the land is allotted. Closure of the factory for a continuous period exceeding six months without proper reason to the satisfaction of allotting authority shall be considered as breach of the condition.”
That, the consequences of breach of above conditions are mentioned in clauses 12 (B) and 33 of the lease deed.
Clause 12 (B) stipulates that “12.(B) THE LESSEE agrees that in case where the lessee has neither taken any effective steps No. the 4 industry is established or running within the time period as mentioned in clause '7' and the constitution of the Firm/partnership/Company is changed without permission of the lessor, the lessor has right to cancel the allotment of land in such cases.”
Clause 33 stipulates that: “33.
Any notice required to be made or given to the lessee hereunder shall be deemed to have been duly served on him. If sent by the Managing Director M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (J) Ltd., Jabalpur or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf, through post by registered letter addressed to the lessee at premises of the said business or at registered office of the firm. Failing above if it is affixed at the entrance of the said premises in the presence of the witnesses.
The petitioner despite of getting the leasedeed registered on 30th November 2010 did not take any step to take possession of the land leased out to him and to establish Daal, Chuni, Bhusi industries thereover.
This nonaction on the part of the petitioner led to issuance of notice on 16.11.2011, calling upon the petitioner that within 30 days the petitioner shall deposit the amount of arrears and establish the industry and commence production failing which action would be taken as per clause 21 of Madhya Pradesh Udhyog Bhoomi Avantan Niyam, 1974, clause 28 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Audyogik Bhoomi Avam Audyogik Bhavan Prabandhan Niyam, 2008 and clause 33 of leasedeed dated 15th September 2010.
5 Pertinent it would be to note that the letter was addressed to the petitioner on the address on which the letter of intent dated 15.6.2007 (Annexure P3) and 10.9.2007 (Annexure P5) were served.
Thereafter again by letter dated 18.1.2012 the petitioner was called upon to effect compliance as stipulated in clauses 7 (A) and 7 (B) of the deed dated 15.7.2010. This letter was also addressed to the petitioner on the address given in letter of intent and allotment order.
When there was no response from the petitioner the reminder was sent on 21.5.2012. The petitioner since did not respond to the notices sent to him, led the Managing Director to pass an order on 13.8.2012 cancelling the allotment of plot Nos. 2 and 3. The said order has subsequently been affirmed by the appellate authority by impugned order dated 15.1.2013.
Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notices were served on him as the address on the notice was not that of the petitioner.
This contention of the petitioner is, however, belied from the document brought on record and cumulatively marked as Annexure P11, i.e., notices dated 16.11.2011 and 18.1.2012, which were sent on the same address on which letter of intent and allotment order were sent. Since the petitioner had already received the letter of intent and the allotment order, it has to be presumed as per clause 33 of the deed that the subsequent letters/notices sent on same address were also served on him.
Petitioner has filed Annexure P12 to substantiate that the letter dated 21.5.2012 was No. served on him.
It is to be remembered that letter dated 21.5.2012 was reminder of earlier 6 letter dated 16.11.2011 and was not a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner.
Therefore, the contention putforth by the petitioner that show cause notice was not properly served on him and that he did not have proper opportunity to reply and defend his case cannot be accepted. Even otherwise it is apparent from the record that as per letter of intent the petitioner was required to execute and register the leasedeed and take over the possession of land within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment order. The allotment order was issued on 10.9.2007 and instead of getting the leasedeed executed and registered within 30 days, the same was got executed after a period of over three years, i.e., on 15th September, 2010 and got it registered thereafter a period of two months on 30th November 2010. Furthermore, as per the terms of leasedeed as noticed above the petitioner was to take possession of the plot in question and was to commence the production within a period stipulated therein. No material has been commended at by the petitioner as to what steps he had taken immediately after receiving the allotment order dated 10.9.2007.
There is also no material on record to show that effective steps were taken by the petitioner after execution and registration of leasedeed for establishing an industry and commencing production. It is, therefore, the petitioner who has to blame himself for cancellation of allotment of plots as it is he who committed the breach of the terms and conditions agreed at by the petitioner vide leasedeed dated 15th September 2010.
In view whereof the cancellation order having been passed on the basis of finding of fact that the petitioner has 7 committed a breach of terms and conditions agreed upon, the same canNo. be found fault with as would warrant an interference.
In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi