Disposed

Indura Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sh. Lalit Kumar Tanwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development,Lko. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC30 May 2024WRIC/2639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning unauthorized demands for lease premium by the GNIDA, the single-judge bench set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation. The court expressed surprise at the authority's prolonged silence despite internal audits and criticized the functioning of the authority. An interim direction was passed to prevent coercive action if the petitioner deposited the disputed amount within two weeks. The matter was listed for further orders pending an affidavit from the Manager (Commercial) explaining the delay. No final relief was granted in this interim order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Indura Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2639 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Indura Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sh. Lalit Kumar Tanwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Infrastructure And Industrial Development,Lko. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikey Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sachin Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.s 2 and 3.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a firm which deals in real estate and applied or allotment of commercial plots Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GNIDA) and was allotted plot in Sector Alpha Commercial Belt of Greater Noida in 2002 through bid process. The bid of the petitioner was accepted and he was intimated by allotment -cum-intimation letter dated 27.2.2002. It is further submitted that cost of entire plot was Rs.2,13,30,664.53/- out of which petitioner deposited Rs.52, 41, 200/- on 23.3.2022. Lease deed was also executed on 3.5.2002 and the lease rent was Rs.1400/for the first two years and thereafter Rs.5,33,267/- per year. The petitioner had further deposited an amount of Rs.63,99,200/and in the lease deed the respondent-authority had acknowledged the receipt of the said amount and the remaining premium of Rs.1,49,31,466/- was to be paid in 14 equal half yearly installments of Rs.17,07,337/- each. It was further provided that in case the petitioner obtains the certificate of functionality within six months i.e. 3.5.2002 to 3.11.2002 then he was entitled to incentive in the form of Easy Payment Plan and no interest was to be paid on the first 4 installments.

¶7

The dispute in the present case pertains to deposit of lease premium and the petitioner submits that he was informed by the respondent authority that he had to deposit Rs.98, 24,783/towards lease premium and the said amount was deposited by him on 27.5.2005. The petitioner was under the impression that the entire amount of lease premium has been deposited and there was no intimation by the respondent authorities to the extent that there was shortfall in deposit of the lease premium but it is only after expiry of more than six years i.e. on 22.2.2012 that the petitioner was informed that he had to

¶8

deposit Rs.1,94,285/- towards lease premium as per the demand dated 22.2.2012. The petitioner deposited the entire amount of premium and that no dues certificate was issued on 14.3.2012 by Manager (Commercial) solely on account of the fact that the total amount due was Rs.7, 27, 552/- against which the petitioner deposited Rs.5, 33, 267/- and paid lease rent and the entire amount on 27.2.2012 and no dues certificate was issued on 14.3.2012.

¶9

After depositing the full amount of lease premium and lease rent there would not have any further dues towards the petitioner but it seems that after a lapse of six to seven years further demand was created for an amount of Rs.46, 65, 069/stating that wrong figure has been intimated to the petitioner on account of mistake of the staff. Petitioner made several representations against the said demand and also approached this Court previously by filing writ C No.38783 of 2022 which was disposed of by means of order dated 19.12.2022 directing the respondent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within six weeks. It is in compliance of the order of this Court that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner and upholding the demand.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had made all the payments as and when the same was demanded by the respondent-authority and on each occasion they kept silent for more than 6 to 7 years. He submits that against all the head amount of penalty and interest is illegal and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the petitioner has deposited all the dues but it is due to the fault of the authority that wrong demand was raised upon the petitioner on 22.2.2012 and even no dues certificate was wrongly issued on 14.3.2012. It is stated that it is due to the action of certain officials that the said error had occurred and the authority has taken action against the said officials.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

It is noticed that firstly even in case there was shortfall in depositing the amount of lease premium in 2005 it is only after expiry of more than six years the same was found deficit and revised demand which is due to the petitioner was wrongly issued in connivance of their officials and even if there was no outstanding amount in 2012 further demand was raised only on 16.10.2017 after expire of more than five years. It is surprising that even in case amount was not deposited as provided for every year then that discrepancy ought to have been pointed out at the very outset and not as and when the audit report was

¶13

made available. Let the authority explain as to why this they chose to remain silent for such a long length of time. It has been submitted that only due to wrong committed by the officials that the petitioner has been proceeded against despite the fact that the payment as well as no dues certificate has been issued by the Manager (Commercial).

¶14

Let an affidavit be filed by Manager (Commercial) indicating as to why he chose to remain silent for five years despite the fact that there was shortfall in the demand and accordingly give details and the reasons how the discrepancy crept in. Aforesaid facts reflect poorly with regard to the functioning of the respondent-authority and this Court will pass further orders after considering the response filed y the respondents.

¶15

As an interim measure, it is provided that if the petitioner complies with the previous directions of this Court and deposits the entire amount within two weeks, no further coercive action shall bet taken against it till the next date of listing.

¶16

List on 9.4.2024

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 RKM.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indura Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sh. Lalit Kumar Tanwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development,Lko. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Indura Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sh. Lalit Kumar Tanwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development,Lko. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shamshad Khan S/O Jumman Khan Vs Purushotum Singh S/O Gaya Bux Singh and Another

Pankaj Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Mohd. Moin Siddqui vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Aditya Singh Alias Major vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Doober vs Addl. Commissioner Iii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others