Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1441 - HC - Companies LawValidity of cancellation of allotment of land standing in their favour - withdrawal of No Objection Certificate by the first respondent, SIPCOT Limited. - HELD THAT:- This court finds that the petitioners have got their allotment on various dates for different sizes of plots and a meagre development alone had taken place in some of the petitioners- cases. Though the default clause in the allotment order is in favour of the SIPCOT for cancelling the allotment and withdrawing the No Objection Certificates in the event of non implementation of the project within the stipulated period of 30 months, the SIPCOT has come forward with a scheme for entertaining the same petitioners/industrial corporations to retain the land and implement the project rather than cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the amount paid by the petitioners, however, subject to payment of a penalty in proportion to the present value of the land and in consonance with the extent of non-implementation of the project. Whether the scheme proposed by SIPCOT in these cases are proper and acceptable or it requires any interference? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, an allotment of land by the Government or its Agency on lease would be on affordable cost, when it is compared with any private land taken on lease and it will be the same in case of outright purchase also. Such being the case, the petitioners cannot expect the SIPCOT, a Government Agency to leave the lands in the hands of some persons and wait endlessly for the petitioners to implement the projects - the allotment of lands by SIPCOT is not a sale, but, only a lease for ninety nine years. It comes with a default clause of cancellation of lease which indirectly intends for industrial development in the State within a reasonable period and the resultant revenue therefrom. One cannot dispute that the inaction or delay in implementation of the project will certainly have impact to a greater extent on the industrial development in the State. The petitioners-industrial corporations, having already enjoyed such holiday period due to the inaction or flexible action taken by the officials of SIPCOT, cannot expect that they can escape from the monetary liability. This court is of the view that the specific contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners have been properly addressed by the learned Advocate General and the scheme suggested by SIPCOT is fully acceptable - the petitioners have to opt either to surrender the lands allotted to them and get refund of the amount paid by them after deducting the amount deductible as per the prevailing policy of SIPCOT; (OR) if the petitioners are willing to retain the lands allotted to them despite such a long delay in implementing the project, they shall make payment of the penalty proposed by SIPCOT as indicated in the above mentioned table in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from the 1st of the English Calendar month from the date of this order and also undertake to implement the project immediately and commence the commercial production within such period of 12 months. Petition disposed off.
|