Partly allowed

The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India

Gujarat HC10 May 2019SCA/6909/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple lessees of Kandla Port Trust lands challenged TAMP orders of 2011 and 2014 revising scale of rates retrospectively and re-categorising lands by use. The court upheld the land policies and the 2014 order, held retrospective revision from July 1999 without statutory authority was illegal, partly set aside the 2011 order, denied lease renewal as a right, and found some petitioners lacked loc

What did the court decide?

2011 TAMP order partly set aside as retrospective from July 1999; 2009-2013 SoR and 2014 order confirmed; demand notices based on 2011 order set aside; transferor-petitions dismissed or disposed of

The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2535 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6909 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2607 of 2012 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 673 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13371 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5218 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5219 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5222 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5223 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5224 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16225 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16530 of 2013 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13409 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2905 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9342 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 372 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10306 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10983 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10984 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11497 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2536 of 2017 With

¶4

Page 1 of 273

¶5

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶6

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2537 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2538 of 2017 With

¶7

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8538 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10611 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10730 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10891 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10892 of 2016

¶8

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶9

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Sd/-

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES

¶12

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

¶13

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? YES

¶14

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any NO order made thereunder ?

¶15

==========================================================

¶16

IMC LIMITED & 1 other(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

UNION OF INDIA & 2 other(s)

¶19

THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN LTD

Versus

UNION OF INDIA

IFFCO

Versus

UNION OF INDIA

MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT LTD.

¶26

Versus

¶27

Page 2 of 273

¶28

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

KANDLA PORT TRUST

PSL LIMITED

Versus

UNION OF INDIA

LAXMI MOTORS

Versus

UNION OF INDIA

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

¶37

Versus

¶38

UNION OF INDIA

¶39

M/S.AVEAN INT. PVT. LTD.

¶40

Versus

¶41

UNION OF INDIA

¶42

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. (I) LTD

¶43

Versus

¶44

BOARD OF TRUSTEE, PORT OF KANDLA

¶45

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD.

¶46

Versus

¶47

UNION OF INDIA

¶48

THE TANKER OWNER AND OPERATIONS ASSOCIATION

¶49

Versus

¶50

UNION OF INDIA

¶51

M/S.KESAR TERMINALS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

¶52

Versus

¶53

KANDLA PORT TRUST

¶54

JRE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.

¶55

Versus

¶56

UNION OF INDIA

¶57

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LIMITED

¶58

Versus

¶59

KANDLA PORT TRUST

¶60

==========================================================

¶61

Page 3 of 273

¶62

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶63

Appearance:

¶64

MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR DHAVAL SHAH(2354) for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos.2535/2017, 2536/2017, 2537/2017 & 2538/2017

¶65

MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos.2607/2012 & 673/2014)

¶66

MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR AMAR BHATT for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos.13371/2013 & 8538/2016)

¶67

MRS SANGEETA PAHWA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos.5218/2014, 5219/2014, 5222, 5223/2014, 5224/2014, 10983/2015 and 10984/2015)

¶68

MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR SALIL THAKORE for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA No.16225/2013)

¶69

MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. MINOO SHAH for the Petitioner (in SCA Nos.16530/2013, 372/2016 & 6909/2012)

¶70

MR MANISH BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE for MR BHATT & CO., for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA No.13409/2014)

¶71

MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS.ARCHANA ACHARYA for the petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos.2905/2015, 10306/2015)

¶72

MRS SUMAN KHARE WITH MR AKSHAT KHARE for the petitioner(s) (in SCA No.9342/2015)

¶73

MR BD NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE & MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR PREMAL RACHH for the petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos.11497/2015, 10730/2016, 10891/2016, 10892/2016)

¶74

MR KS NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR RAJENDRA GOLANI for the petitioner(s) (In SCA No.10611/2016)

¶75

MR DEVANG VYAS, ASG for the Respondent No.1 – Union of India MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR DHAVAL VYAS for M/S.VYAS ASSOCIATES(1559) for the Respondent(s) No. 2-3 (KPT) NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 SERVED BY RPAD (N)(6) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶76

==========================================================

¶77

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶78

Date : 10/05/2019

¶79

CAV JUDGMENT

¶80

1. Though all the petitions have diversified

¶81

Page 4 of 273

¶82

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶83

facts, due to intermingling and commonality of
legal issues, they were heard together with the
consent of the learned Advocates for the parties
and this common order is being passed.

¶84

petitions is the challenge to the Notification
dated 11.5.2011 and the Notification dated
4.12.2014 issued by the respondent Tariff
Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) constituted
under Section 47A of the Major Port Trusts Act,
1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Act"). By the said Notifications, the TAMP has
framed the scale of rates (SOR) for use of the
lands belonging to the Kandla Port Trust (now
Din Dayal Port Trust, but shall be referred to
as 'KPT' for the sake of convenience), under
Section 49 of the said Act. The consequential
actions taken by the KPT on the non-payment of

¶85

the lease rentals as per the scale of rates
framed by the TAMP under the impugned
notificationsandnon-paymentofthe
compensatory bills have also been challenged in
some of the petitions, whereas some have prayed

¶86

Page 5 of 273

¶87

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶88

for renewal of their respective leases.

¶89

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶90

3.Special Civil Application No.2535 of 2017
filed by the petitioner M/s.IMC Limited being
the lead matter was argued at length, and hence
its facts are considered for easy comprehension.

¶91

3.1The petitioner No.1 M/s.IMC Limited
(earlier known as United Storage Tanks Terminals
Ltd. - USTTL) is a company incorporated under
the provisions contained in the Companies Act,
1953. The USTTL was wholly owned subsidiary of
the petitioner No.1 Company and was amalgamated
into the petitioner No.1 Company by a Scheme of
Amalgamation approved by the Calcutta High Court
by its order dated 7.7.2010. The petitioner
No.2 is the Managing Director of the petitioner
No.1 and is also a shareholder thereof.

¶92

3.2The petitioner No.1 is engaged in the
business of port based liquid bulk terminal
operations and providing storage tank farm and
terminalling services. The respondent No.2 is
the Tariff Authority of Major Ports (hereinafter

¶93

Page 6 of 273

¶94

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶95

referred to as "TAMP"), the authority
constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act,
1963 (hereinafter referred to as "said Act”)
exercising the powers and discharging functions

¶96

inter alia with respect to the fixation of
tariff for major ports including the respondent
No.3 KPT. The respondent No.3 is one of the
Major Port Trusts in whose premises the
petitioner No.1 is operating a common user

¶97

liquid bulk tank farms. The petitioner No.1 and
its associate company JRE Tank Terminals Private

¶98

Limited claim to be the lessees in respect of
four plots in question, within the premises of
the respondent No.3.

¶99

3.3The respondent No.3 KPT had issued a
letter of allotment dated 27th October, 1995 to
the USTTL (predecessor of the petitioner No.1)
allotting land admeasuring 12 acres (equivalent

¶100

to 48552 sq. mtrs.) for a period of 30 years
i.e. till October 26, 2025, on “as is where is”

¶101

basis for the purpose of storage and handling
of hazardous and non-hazardous liquid bulk at
Kandla. According to the petitioners, the said

¶102

Page 7 of 273

¶103

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶104

land was allotted under the lease on Premium-

¶105

cum-Lease rent basis. Accordingly, the USTTL
paid a lump sum premium of Rs.40,00,000/-
(Rupees forty lac only) as per Clause (f) of the
letter of allotment. In addition to the
premium, the USTTL was charged lease rental at
the rate of Rs.11/- per sq. mtrs., in terms of
Clause (c) of the said letter of allotment,
which was to be compounded at 10% annually from
the date of letter of allotment.

¶106

3.4 The respondent No.3 KPT had the right to

¶107

revise the rent rates every five years and in
July 1999, the KPT suggested revised rent rates,
however, the respondent No.2 TAMP refused to
revise the rent rates at that time, on account
of natural calamities in the region, and
directed the KPT to classify the land taking
into account the distance from the creek and

¶108

the purpose for which the land was allotted.
Accordingly, in 1999 the land owned by the
respondent No.3 was classified into following
five categories:-

¶109

Page 8 of 273

¶110

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶111

	`Category`	`Proposed` `Rates`
`a.`	`Land upto link road or 600 mtrs. from the` `bank of creek for all purpose`	`80`
`b.`	`Land between link road and bye pass for` `commercial use of liquid cargo`	`64`
`c.`	`Land at south and east of national highway` `8-A for business and commercial use of dry` `cargo`	`59`
`d.`	`Land from the bye pass road to Kharirobar` `for business and commercial use of liquid` `cargo`	`48`
`e.`	`Land for residential and other miscellaneous` `public utility purpose.`	`14`

¶112

3.5Due to several natural calamities viz.
Super cyclone in 1999 and earthquake in 2001 and

¶113

their aftereffects in the region, the rates
proposed by the respondent No.3 were not
accepted by the respondent No.2 TAMP and were
not implemented during the period from 1999 till
2004. In 2005, the Government issued guidelines

¶114

that the Port Trusts should charge land premium
upfront based on the tender along with nominal
rent of Re.1/-.

¶115

3.6In the year 2005, the respondent No.3

¶116

KPT issued a tender inviting bids for allotment
of plots (adjacent to the LPG Project of OIC)

¶117

for construction of liquid storage tanks for
handling liquid cargo at Kandla on a 30 year

¶118

Page 9 of 273

¶119

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶120

lease. In the said tender the respondent KPT
had changed the payment model from a premium-
cum-lease rent structure followed earlier to
single lump sum consideration in the form of a
higher premium and token Re.1/- lease structure.

¶121

However, the said tender of 2005 was

¶122

subsequently cancelled by the KPT in or around
December 2010.

¶123

of India, Ministry of Shipping, in exercise of
the powers conferred under Section 111 of the

¶124

the said Act, in supersession of the earlier
Land Policy for Major Ports - 2004, for
implementation by all Major Ports and Ennore
Port limited with immediate effect.

¶125

3.8Clause 6.3 of 2010 Policy provided for
the manner and method for determination of

¶126

market value. Accordingly, the SoR had to be

¶127

recommended to the TAMP by the KPT as per the
procedure and after taking into consideration

¶128

the factors mentioned therein. The SoR had to be
arrived at taking 6% of the market value as rent

¶129

Page 10 of 273

¶130

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶131

per annum, and was liable to be revised every
five years. It was also provided inter alia that
the Committee of the KPT should recommend to the
TAMP, varying SoR in accordance with the end use
as reflected in the Land Use Plan.

¶132

3.9The respondent KPT keeping in view the
Land Policy of 2010, once again sought to revise
the lease rentals with regard to the lands
comprised in the port and addressed a letter
dated 29.4.2010 to the respondent TAMP proposing

¶133

a revision in rent structure since 1999. The
respondent No.2 TAMP proposed a meeting on
29.7.2010 at Kandla for discussing the proposal
from the respondent KPT. The said letter was
forwarded to Gandhidham Chamber of Commerce and

¶134

Industry (GCCI), an association in which the
petitioner No.1 was a member. One of the
members of the GCCI was a registered association
representing liquid tank terminals based at the

¶135

Kandla Port, being the Kandla Liquid Tank
Terminal (KLTTA). The said KLTTA raised

¶136

objections against the proposed increase in the
lease rentals for various reasons before the

¶137

Page 11 of 273

¶138

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶139

respondent TAMP. It was also pointed out to the
respondent TAMP that the respondent KPT had
chosen to rely on the valuers report rather than
the State Government’s guidelines and that the

¶140

relevant land policy at the time was brought
into force in the year 2004, and therefore, the
policy of 2010 could not be utilized for fixing
rent from the period from July 1999 to December
31, 2003. The joint hearing had also taken place
on July 29, 2010.

¶141

3.10Thereafter, the respondent TAMP by its
order dated 25.3.2011, (published by the
Notification on May 11, 2011), framed the scale
of rates for the lease rentals for the plots of
the land in the Port area for the following
consecutive slabs:-

¶142

a)July 1999 to December 31, 2003;

¶143

b)January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008;

¶144

c)January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013.

¶145

3.11The 2011 TAMP order inter alia charged
lease rentals retrospectively for C-1 lands

¶146

Page 12 of 273

¶147

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶148

(which included the petitioner No.1’s lands) at

¶149

the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. mtrs., for the
period from July 1999 to December, 2003, Rs.39/-
per sq. mtrs., for the period from January 2004

¶150

to December 31, 2008 and Rs.80.40/- per sq.
mtrs., for the period from January 1, 2009 to
December 31, 2013. The lease rentals were to
bear an escalation of 5% (compoundable) per
annum for the period from July 1999 to February
24, 2004 and at 2% thereafter. The respondent
KPT thereafter issued a demand notice dated

¶151

20.5.2013 to the petitioner No.1 (USTTL) in
respect of the lease and called upon the USTTL

¶152

to make payment of arrears of lease rent
effective from 1999 relying upon 2011 TAMP
order. The petitioner No.1, therefore, vide
letter dated 25.6.2013 replied to the said
demand notice stating inter alia that the
respondent KPT did not have any power to refix

¶153

the base rent with retrospective effect.
Thereafter, certain correspondences ensued
between the parties.

¶154

3.12In the year 2014, the respondent No.1

¶155

Page 13 of 273

¶156

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶157

issued the policy guidelines for Land Management

¶158

by Major Ports revising the earlier Policy of

¶159

2010. The Clause 18 thereof provided for the
manner and method of determination of market

¶160

value of Port lands. Keeping in mind the said
guidelines the respondent No.3 KPT again vide

¶161

the letter dated 26.6.2014 filed its

¶162

comprehensive proposal for revision of rate
structure of lands before the respondent No.2

¶163

TAMP. The respondent TAMP after undergoing the
consultative process and after conducting the

¶164

joint hearing of the KPT and the stakeholders,
passed the order dated 13.11.2014, which was
notified vide the Notification dated 4.12.2014,

¶165

by which the respondent TAMP revised and

¶166

increased the annual lease rentals for the KPT’s

¶167

lands under the categories “A to G”. The

¶168

categories A to F were based on their
geographical location, however, the category G

¶169

was created specifically based on its use for

¶170

liquid storage tanks. Two sub-categories G-1

¶171

and G-2 were also created therein, whereby the

¶172

category G-1 was given to the lands situated
from Eastern bank of Kandla creek to Western

¶173

Page 14 of 273

¶174

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶175

bank of Nakti creek, and the category G-2 was in
respect of the lands situated from West side of
Nakti creek to Kharirohar having existing oil
terminals of IOCL, HPPCL and BPCL.

¶176

3.13Thus, the lands of the petitioners were

¶177

classified in G-1 category, whose lease rental
was increased to Rs.905.17 per sq. mtrs., with
effect from 1.1.2014 till December 31, 2018.

¶178

The respondent KPT thereafter by its letter
dated 15.12.2014 addressed a letter to USTTL

¶179

calling upon the petitioner to make payment of
Rs.49,39,777/- for the period from January 10,
2015 to January 9, 2016 at the rate of Rs.90.55
per sq. mtrs., along with previous outstanding
sums of Rs.1,51,32,089/-. The respondent KPT
also raised a final notice for the payment on
January 12, 2015 calling for the payment of
outstanding dues from USTTL. The respondent KPT

¶180

once again by its letter of February 2015 called

¶181

upon the USTTL to make payment of

¶182

Rs.4,54,48,780/- at the rate of Rs.923.27 per
sq. mtrs., for the period from 1.1.2015 to
1.1.2016, and at the rate of Rs.941.74 per sq.

¶183

Page 15 of 273

¶184

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶185

mtrs., for the period from 1.1.2016 to 9.1.2016
along with previous outstanding sums. The
respondent KPT thereafter raised an invoice
dated 8.5.2015 on USTTL for Rs.905.17 per sq.
mtrs., effective retrospectively from 1.1.2014
and demanded lease rentals as stated in the said

¶186

invoice. The petitioner No.1 had responded to
the said demand notice by addressing a letter
dated 3.2.2016 pointing out that such demand
raised by the respondent KPT was exorbitant on
account of wrongful categorization of liquid

¶187

tank farm business. According to the
petitioners, the petitioner No.1 made payment
under protest of Rs.51,34,536/- at the rate of
Rs.90.55 per sq. mtrs.

¶188

3.14 According to the petitioner it had already
informed the KPT vide its letter dated 8.9.2010
that pursuant to the order dated 14.6.2010 of

¶189

the High Court of Kolkatta, USTTL was
amalgamated with the petitioner M/s.IMC Limited,

¶190

and therefore, the name of the petitioner
Company was required to be changed in the KPT's
records. However, the KPT vide letter dated

¶191

Page 16 of 273

¶192

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶193

17.10.2013 had called upon the petitioner to
remit the outstanding dues of the USTTL, stating
that the land was allotted to USTTL and that it
is not transferred in the name of M/s.IMC

¶194

Limited as per the KPT's record. The KPT
thereafter informed the petitioner by its letter
dated 5.2.2016 that USTTL’s change in name was
not finalized due to non-payment of dues by
USTTL and pending Court case (filed by the
petitioner No.1 in the year 2003 against the
respondent KPT, in relation to the demand of
premium made under the lease in question). The
respondent KPT reiterated its stand and informed

¶195

the petitioners that if the dues as per the
demand notices for lease rent were not cleared,
it would initiate action. The petitioners,
therefore, filed the present petition, seeking
following reliefs as prayed for in paragraph 81
of the petition:-

¶196

“81. a)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to issue a writ of certiorari/a writ in the
nature of certiorari and/or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction
calling for the records and proceedings
relating to the implementation of the order
dated March 25, 2011 notified vide
Notification G. No.106 on May 11, 2011 by

¶197

Page 17 of 273

¶198

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶199

respondent No.2 (2011 TAMP order) and after
considering the legality and validity
thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside
the same;

¶200

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records and proceedings relating to the implementation of the order dated November 13, 2014 notified vide Notification G. No.350 on December 4, 2014, by respondent No.2 (2014 TAMP order) and after considering the legality and validity thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same;

¶201

c) That this Hon’ble Court declare the change in the categorization of the lands demised unto petitioner No.1 on the basis of its use under the order dated November 13, 2014 notified vide Notification G. No.350 on December 4, 2014, by respondent No.2 (2014 TAMP order), as discriminatory, bad and illegal;

¶202

d) That this Hon’ble Court issue a writ of certiorari/a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the notices dated May 20, 2013, December 17, 2013 and December 15, 2014 and any other notices issued by respondent No.3 to petitioner No.1 in relation to the demand for lease rent under the order dated March 25, 2011 notified vide Notification G. No.106 on May 11, 2011, by respondent No.2 (2011 TAMP order);

¶203

e) That this Hon’ble Court issue a writ of certiorari/a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the notices dated May 8, 2015, February, 2015, February 5, 2016 and

¶204

Page 18 of 273

¶205

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶206

December 2, 2016 and any other notices
issued by respondent No.3 to petitioner
No.1 in relation to the demand for lease
rent under the order dated November 13,
2014 notified vide Notification G. No.350
on December 4, 2014, by respondent No.2
(2014 TAMP order);

¶207

f) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the unilateral change to the premium-cumlease rent structure in the existing Leave of the petitioner, by respondent Nos.2 and/or 3 as illegal;”

¶208

4. The respondent KPT has resisted the petition

¶209

being SCA No.2535 of 2017 by filing affidavit-
in-reply raising the contentions as stated
herein below:-

¶210

4.1 The petition was not maintainable as

¶211

the challenge to the orders of Tariff Authority
was barred by delay, laches, acquiescence and

¶212

estoppal. The petition invoking the
extraordinary, prerogative and discretionary

¶213

writ jurisdiction may not be entertained as the
petition involved disputed questions of facts,
which are required to be adjudicated by
interpreting contractual obligations between the
parties.

¶214

4.2The petition at the instance of the

¶215

Page 19 of 273

¶216

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶217

present petitioner challenging the order of TAMP
and the notices issued by the respondent KPT to
the original allottee USTTL for the parcel of
land in question was not maintainable. There
was a huge outstanding amount payable by the
allottee.

¶218

4.3The respondent KPT vide its letter

¶219

dated 27.10.1995 had informed the allottee USTTL
that the parcel of land in question was decided
to be allotted to the said company on the
conditions mentioned therein. However, in
violation of the mandatory conditions accepted

¶220

by the original allottee USTTL, the parcel of

¶221

the land was transferred to the present
petitioner under the Scheme of Amalgamation,
though there was absolute prohibition against
the transfer of the plot in question without
prior permission or sanction of the respondent

¶222

KPT. The KPT being not a party to the
proceeding of the Scheme of Amalgamation
approved by the Calcutta High Court, the same
was not binding to the KPT, and the present
petitioners being third party can not claim any

¶223

Page 20 of 273

¶224

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶225

right under the letter dated 27.10.1995.

¶226

4.4In view of the provisions made in the
land policy issued by the Government of India in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section
111 of the said Act, a transfer of port land
cannot be affected by an allottee without
obtaining prior approval of the Board of
Trustees, and the transfer would be subject to
payment of transfer fees. The KPT, therefore,
was not obliged to recognize such transferee as
the allottee of the plot in question and the
occupation by such transferee of the Government
largess would be unauthorized.

¶227

4.5The petitioners had suppressed the
material facts that the amount of premium
required under the terms of the allotment was
not paid by the original allottee USTTL, and
therefore, the document of lease was not
executed.

¶228

4.6By the amendment in the said Act,
Chapter-VA was introduced, providing for
constitution of TAMP for framing the scale of

¶229

Page 21 of 273

¶230

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶231

rates, the powers that were earlier exercised by

¶232

the Board of Kandla. It was, therefore,
resolved by the Board in its meeting of
23.5.1997 to recommend revision of rates to the

¶233

TAMP, however, the said proposal was returned by
the TAMP by the order dated 22.2.1999, requiring
the Board to reclassify the lands taking into

¶234

consideration the purpose for which it was
allottedalongwithpreparingproper

¶235

classification, logical definition, etc.

¶236

4.7By the report dated 16.6.1999 the Land
Committee of KPT had recommended for the

¶237

revision of rates upon thorough examination of
landtrendsandcollectingadditional
information, which was under consideration by
the KPT, however, since the area of Kutchh was
severely affected by cyclone in the year 1999
followed by massive earthquake in January 2001,

¶238

the proposal could not be finalized.

¶239

4.8In the meantime, land policy for major
ports, 2004 was issued by the Central Government

¶240

under Section 111 of the said Act, which
provided for revision of scale of rates every

¶241

Page 22 of 273

¶242

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶243

five years at the rate commensurate with the
prevalent market value, by arriving at annual
lease rent taking 6% of market value of the
lands. For determining the market value of the
lands, a Committee was constituted under the
chairmanship of the Chairman, KPT, which
Committee by its report recommended revision of
rates. The said recommendation was placed in
the meeting held from time to time and in the
meeting of Board on 21.1.2006 it was observed
that the revision pertaining to A, B, and D
categories of the general land at Kandla be
finalized after the receipt of actual upfront
premium from the allotment of 17 plots to the
respective highest bidders for construction of
storage tanks at old Kandla and as per the
prevailing guidelines issued by the Government

¶244

of India on 8.3.2004. With a view to avoid
duplication and multiple proposals to be made to
TAMP it was decided to send a combined proposal
for the subject lands i.e. the lands type A, B,
C, D, and E after finalization of the allotment
of the said 17 plots.

¶245

Page 23 of 273

¶246

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶247

4.9Though the bids for 17 plots were
opened in the year 2006, the allotment to the
bidders could not be made till 2009 because of
pending permissions from the Government of

¶248

India. Thereafter a Committee was appointed for
fixing market value of the lands and schedule of
rates as per the Land Policy. The Committee
after going through various aspects and
considering the parameters given in the Land
Policy accepted the market value of land
assessed by the approved land valuer. The KPT
thereafter based on the said report had
submitted the proposal to the TAMP on 19.4.2010
suggesting revision of rates for three
consecutive slabs i.e. from July 1999 to 31st
December 2004, 1st January 2004 to 31st December
2008 and 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013.

¶249

4.10On the receipt of the proposal from the
KPT the TAMP following the consultative
procedure had called for the objections to the
revision of rates from the stakeholders,
pursuant to which the Kandla Liquid Tank
Terminal Association and Gandhidham Chamber of

¶250

Page 24 of 273

¶251

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶252

Commerce had offered their comments, though the
petitioner had chosen neither to object nor to
attend the public meeting held by the TAMP on
29.7.2010, contesting the recommendation of the

¶253

revision of rates. The TAMP thereafter passed
the order dated 25.3.2011 accepting the
recommendations made by the KPT and approving
the revision of rates to be affected in three
slabs as proposed.

¶254

4.11 It is further contended by the KPT
that since the proposal for framing/revising
scale of rates was not approved by the TAMP at
the relevant stages, the revision of rates could
not be affected and the issue had remained

¶255

pending. The lands vested in KPT being
Government lands could not be permitted to be
occupied by private entities for business
purpose by paying lower rentals than market
rates. Over and above the covenant of the
lease, the directions of Government of India and

¶256

the land policy for the major ports issued under
Section 111 of the said Act required the ground
rent for the lands to be revised every five

¶257

Page 25 of 273

¶258

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶259

years. The provision for arriving at the rent
as provided was to be 6% of the market value at
the time of revision of scale of rates. The
lessees were aware that based on the market
value at the time of revision of scale of rates,
the ground rent would be revised for five years,
and therefore, the petitioners were estopped
from contending to the contrary.

¶260

bills of rent with effect from July 1999, and
escalation at the rate of 5% for the period of
lease between 1994-1999, in the line with the
approved scale of rates framed by the Tariff
Authority in exercise of the statutory powers.
The KPT being bound by the scale of rates framed
under Section 49 of the Act is obliged to affect
revised rates from such revised dates as
provided in the scale of rates and accordingly
the additional bills of lease rent were issued.

¶261

The allottee was liable to pay the lease rent at

¶262

a higher rate whenever the scheduled rates were
revised upward by the competent authority which,
owingtoparticularcircumstancesand

¶263

Page 26 of 273

¶264

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶265

calamities, was not revised periodically. The
petitioner cannot take advantage of such facts
and not pay the annual lease rent as per the
statutory fixation. The revision of rates also
could not be said to be having retrospective
effect, inasmuch as the TAMP had affected the
lease rentals for the relevant period for which
there was no revision, being 6% of the market
value at the end of every five years as required
under the document of lease and the land policy.
In any case, the TAMP had the jurisdiction to
retrospectively revise rates and escalate the
lease rentals.

¶266

4.13It has been contended without prejudice

¶267

that the duration for the tariff provided in the

¶268

order dated 25.3.2011 was to endure till
31.12.2013. The KPT, therefore, had made
comprehensiveproposaldated26.6.2014,
recommending revision of rates to the TAMP for
the period commencing from 1.1.2014. The TAMP

¶269

after following the consultative process and
after conducting the joint hearing of the KPT
and the stakeholders, passed the order dated

¶270

Page 27 of 273

¶271

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶272

13.11.2014, which was notified vide Notification
dated 4.12.2014. The KPT in its proposal had
recommended the annual rent at 6% of the market
value at Rs.15,086.13 for G-1 category lands,
being the rate received for similar lands
(Storage Tank Farms) during auction conducted in
the year 2011 and after 2% escalation every year
to arrive at the land valuation as on 1st January
2014. Since the petitioner had participated in
the said auction of similar port lands earmarked
for liquid storage usage it was aware about the
market rates of the lands, and therefore, was
estopped from challenging the rates determined
by the TAMP. The rates applied by the KPT to
the subject lands were in consonance with the
guidelines of the land policy of 2014 and the
orders passed by the TAMP. Therefore, the
petition deserved to be dismissed.

¶273

The petitioner M/s. IMC Limited has also filed similar petitions being SCA No.2536 of 2017 and No.2538 of 2017 and its sister concern M/s.JRE Tank Terminals has filed SCA No.2537 of

¶274

2017 in respect of three other plots allotted to

¶275

Page 28 of 273

¶276

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶277

the original allottees. Similarly other
petitioners have also filed the petitions
challenging the said orders passed by the TAMP
and the consequential actions taken by the KPT
against them.

¶278

SUMMARY OF PETITIONS:-

¶279

6.For the sake of brevity the summary of each
petition be stated as under in the tabular
form:-

¶280

SCA No. 2535 of 2017

¶281

	`Sr. No.`	`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`IMC LTD`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease`	`Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring 48,552 sq.mts issued in`
	`Deed/Allotment`	`favour of United Storage Tanks`
	`Letter`	`Terminal Ltd. on 27.10.1995. (Page 89-` `91)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`27.10.1995 - 26.10.2025 (if from the` `date of LOA)` `10/01/1996 to 09/01/2026 (30 years` `from date ofpossession)`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Term of lease has not commenced, as` `the lease deed has not been executed.`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`M/s. United Storage Tanks Terminal` `Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of`	`Vide scheme of amalgamation approved`
	`change/transfer`	`by the Calcutta High Court dated` `7.7.2010 M/s. Union Storage Tanks` `Terminals Ltd. was amalgamated with` `IMC. (Page 73)`
`7.`	`Date of`	`Vide letter dated 1/8.9.2010, IMC`

¶282

Page 29 of 273

¶283

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶284

`Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`asked for change of name of lessee on` `records of KPT from M/s. United` `Storage and Tank Terminals Ltd. to IMC` `Ltd. (Page 267)`
`8. Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`Letter by Port of 17.10.2013, that the` `land had been allotted to M/s. United` `Storage and Tank Terminals, which has` `not been transferred to IMC, i.e. the` `petitioner, as per the records of KPT.` `(Page 269)`
`9. Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 11 per sq.mt with 10% escalation`
`10.Revised lease` `rent` `rate` `under 2011 Tamp` `Order:`	`1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/ annum` `5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation`
11.`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `2014 TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year from` `2014.`
`12.Whether there` `is change in` `category?`	`C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014`
13.`Breakup of` `amount due from` `allottee:` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`1999-2004 = Rs. 37,10,344/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 28,67,966/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 63,70,416/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 21,83,363/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 22,24,81,912/-` `* Amount payable towards transfer fees` `& interest for delay payment have not` `been included.`
`14.Date of` `petition:`	`16.1.2017`
15.`Prayers`	`1. To quash and set aside TAMP Order` `dated 25.3.2011 and 13.11.2014` `2. The change in categorization of` `lands on the basis of its use` `under order dated 13.11.2014` `3. Setting aside the notices issued` `by KPT in relation to the demand` `of lease rent as per the orders` `of TAMP.` `4. To declare that unilateral change`

¶285

Page 30 of 273

¶286

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶287

	`to the premium cum lease rent` `structure as per existing lease` `deed to be illegal.(Page 62-63)`
`16.Relief Granted`	`No interim relief.`
`17.Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not started due to proceedings pending` `before the High court of Gujarat since` `2003.`
18.`Specific` `Facts:`	• `The lease deed as per the terms` `of the Letter of Allotment has` `not been executed.`
	• `Transfer made by USTTL in` `contravention of the terms of` `allotment.` • `IMC had challenged KPT’s decision` `to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011` `2 GLH 283)`
	• `IMC has made bid(s) for land(s)`
	`earmarked for tank farms (G1` `category) Pg. 457.`
`19.Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	• `Transfer in breach of conditions` `of allotment letter is void; and` `letter of allotment vests no`
	`right in USTTL in absence of`
	`execution of lease, therefore no`
	`right is acquired by the` `transferee.`
`20.Issue of` `Renewal`	• `No clause for renewal and no` `reliefs sought`

¶288

SCA No. 2536 of 2017

¶289

`Sr. No.`	`Details`
`1. Petitioner`	`IMC LTD`
`2. Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/ Allotment` `Letter.`	`Indenture of lease dated 20.8.2002 for` `the land admeasuring 19,479 sq.mtrs.` `(Page 90)`
`3. Duration of` `lease/holding`	`07.03.1986 to 06.03.2016`
`4. Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since 07.03.2016`
`5. Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`M/s. United Storage Tanks Terminal` `Ltd.`

¶290

Page 31 of 273

¶291

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶292

`6. Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Vide scheme of amalgamation approved` `by the Calcutta High Court dated` `7.7.2010 M/s. Union Storage Tanks` `Terminals Ltd. was amalgamated with` `IMC. (Page 73)`
`7. Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`Vide letter dated 1/8.9.2010, IMC` `asked for change of name of lessee on` `records of KPT from M/s. United` `Storage and Tank Terminals Ltd. to IMC` `Ltd. (Page 273)` `* Letter pertains to land admeasuring` `48,552 sq.mtrs`
`8. Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`Letter by Port of 17.10.2013, that the` `land had been allotted to M/s. United` `Storage and Tank Terminals, which has` `not transferred to IMC, i.e. the` `petitioner as per (on) the records of` `KPT.(Page 275)`
`9. Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 11 per sq.mt.`
`10.Revised lease` `rent rate` `under 2011 Tamp` `Order:`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation`
`11.Revised lease` `rent rate under` `2014 TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year from` `2014.`
`12.Whether there` `is change in` `category?`	`C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014`
13.`Breakup of` `amount due from` `allottee:` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 1,12,977/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 21,57,844/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 28,82,308/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 44,15,218/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 2,03,072/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 16,10,86,619/-` `* Amount payable towards transfer fees` `& interest for delay payment have not` `been included.` `* 3 times TAMP rate charged from`

¶293

Page 32 of 273

¶294

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶295

`14.Date of` `petition:`	`01/04/2017.` `16.1.2017`
15.`Prayers/` `Challenge`	`1. To quash and set aside TAMP Order` `dated 25.3.2011 and 13.11.2014` `2. The change in categorization of` `lands on the basis of its use` `under order dated 13.11.2014` `3. Setting aside the notices issued` `by KPT in relation to the demand` `of lease rent as per the orders` `of TAMP.` `4. To declare that unilateral change` `to the premium cum lease rent` `structure as per existing lease` `deed to be illegal.(Page 61)`
`16.Relief Granted`	`No interim relief.`
`17.Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not started due to proceedings pending` `before the High court of Gujarat.`
18.`Specific` `Facts:`	• `Transfer made by USTTL in` `contravention of the terms of` `lease.` • `IMC had challenged KPT’s decision` `to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011` `2 GLH 283)` • `IMC has made bid(s) for land(s)` `earmarked for tank farms (G1` `category).`
`19.Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	• `Transfer in breach of conditions` `of allotment letter is void and` `letter of allotment vests no` `right in USTTL in absence of` `execution of lease therefore no` `right is acquired by the` `transferee.`
`20.Issue of` `Renewal`	• `No clause for renewal in the` `lease deed and no reliefs seeking` `renewal sought in thepetition.`

¶296

SCA No. 2538 of 2017

¶297

`Sr.No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`IMC LTD.`

¶298

Page 33 of 273

¶299

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶300

`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment Letter`	`Indenture of lease dated` `17.09.1984` `Wrt` `land` `admeasuring 9980.(Page 87)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`23.6.1978 to 22.6.2008`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized` `occupant` `since 23.06.2008`
`5.`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`Indian Molasses Co. Pvt.` `Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Not clarified in the` `petition.`
`7.`	`Date of Application` `for transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT to` `application for` `transfer.`	`NA`
`9.`	`Original lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 2.88 per sq.mt.`
`10.` `10.`	`Revised lease rent` `rate under 2011 Tamp` `Order:`	`1994-1999 = Rs.30/- per` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 67.8/- per` `s.m/ annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 87.6/- per` `s.m/ annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 180.60/-per` `s.m/ annum 2% escalation`
11.11.	`Revised lease rent` `rate under 2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2%` `every year from 2014.`
`12.` `12.`	`Whether there is` `change in category?`	`E as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014`
13.13. `14.`	`Breakup of amount due` `from allottee:` `(As per KPT's claim)`	`1994-1999` `=` `Rs.` `13,38,317/-` `1999-2004` `=` `Rs.` `33,07,772/-` `2004-2009` `=` `Rs.` `32,58,371/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-`

¶301

Page 34 of 273

¶302

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶303

		`2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014-` `2018` `=` `Rs.` `7,68,80,931/-` `* Amount payable towards` `transfer fees & interest` `for delay payment have not` `been included.`
`14.` `15.`	`Date of petition:`	`16.1.2017`
15.16.	`Prayers`	`1. To quash and set` `aside` `TAMP` `Order` `dated 25.3.2011 and` `13.11.2014` `2. The` `change` `in` `categorization` `of` `lands on the basis of` `its use under order` `dated 13.11.2014` `3. Setting aside the` `notices issued by KPT` `in relation to the` `demand of lease rent` `as per the orders of` `TAMP.` `4. To` `declare` `that` `unilateral change to` `the premium cum lease` `rent structure as per` `existing lease deed` `to be illegal.` `5. Seeking renewal of` `lease for a further` `period of 30 years` `WEF 2008.`
`16.` `17.`	`Relief Granted`	`No interim relief.`
`17.` `18.`	`Status of Public` `Premises Eviction` `proceedings`	`Proceedings not started` `by Estate Officer under` `the PP Act due to Court` `Case filed by the above` `party.`
`18.` `19.`	`Specific Facts:`	• `Undertaking filed by` `petitioner to pay` `revised ground rent` `WEF 23.6.2008 as may` `be fixed by the` `competent authority` `Pg. 102 D` • `IMC had challenged` `KPT’s decision to`

¶304

Page 35 of 273

¶305

		`cancel` `the` `tenders. (2011` `283)` • `IMC has made` `for` `earmarked for` `farms (G1 ca` `Pg. 440.`	`2005` `2 GLH` `bid(s)` `land(s)` `tank` `tegory)`
`19.`	`Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	• `In absence of` `of transfer p` `by the peti` `the` `right` `reserved.`	`details` `rovided` `tioner,` `is`
`20.`	`Issue of Renewal`	• `Clause of rene` `the lease dee` `the renewal is` `vide` `the` `petition.`	`wal in` `d and` `sought` `present`

¶306

SCA No. 2537 of 2017

¶307

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`JRE TANK TERMINALS PVT LTD` `(a company)`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease Deed/` `Allotment Letter`	`Indenture of lease dated` `21.8.2002` `WRT` `land` `admeasuring 13,658 sq.mtrs.` `(Page 64)`
3.	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`05.03.1986 to 04.03.2016`
4.	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `05.03.2016`
5.	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`M/s JR Enterprise – a` `partnership firm`
6.	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`The partnership firm is` `allegedly converted to a` `company under part ix of` `the Companies act, 1956.` `(Page 63)`
7.	`Date of Application` `for transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NIL`
8.	`Response by KPT to` `application for` `transfer.`	`Notice by KPT seeking` `details if permission as` `required under clause1` `(xii) of the lease deed had`

¶308

Page 36 of 273

¶309

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶310

		`been obtained.` `* Letter of KPT is replied` `by petitioner vide letter` `of 24.3.2014 @pg. 245.`
9.	`Original lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 11 per sq.mt.`
10.	`Revised lease rent` `rate under 2011` `Tamp Order:`	`1994-1999= Rs. 11/- per` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per sm/` `annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per sm/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs.80.4/-per sm/` `annum 2% escalation`
`11.`	`Revised lease rent` `rate under 2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every` `year from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether there is` `change in category?`	`C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014`
13.	`Breakup of amount` `due from allottee:` `(As per KPT's claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 79,217/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 15,13,033/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 20,20,975/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 20,61,710/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 11,23,020/-`
		`2014-` `2018` `=` `Rs.` `12,84,76,188/-`
		`* Amount payable towards` `transfer fees & interest for` `delay payment have not been` `included.` `* 3 times TAMP rate charged` `from 17/10/2016.`
`14.`	`Date of petition:`	`16.1.2017`
15.	`Prayers`	`6. To quash and set aside` `TAMP` `Order` `dated` `25.3.2011 and 13.11.2014` `7. The` `change` `in` `categorization of lands` `on the basis of its use` `under` `order` `dated` `13.11.2014` `8. Setting` `aside` `the` `notices issued by KPT in` `relation to the demand` `of lease rent as per the` `orders of TAMP.`

¶311

Page 37 of 273

¶312

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶313

		`9. To` `declare` `that` `unilateral change to the`
		`premium cum lease rent`
		`structure` `as` `per` `existing lease deed to` `be illegal.(Page ...)`
16.	`Relief Granted`	`No interim relief.`
17.	`Status of Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not started due to` `proceedings pending before` `the High court of Gujarat` `since 2017.`
18.	`Specific Facts:`	• `Transfer made by the` `partnership firm is in` `contravention of the` `terms of allotment.` • `Group Company IMC had` `challenged` `KPT’s` `decision to cancel the` `2005 tenders. (2011 2` `GLH 283)` • `Group Company has made` `bid(s)` `for` `land(s)` `earmarked for tank farms` `(G1 category) Pg. 435.`
19.	`Nature` `of` `preliminary` `objections`	`Transfer` `in` `breach` `of` `conditions` `of` `allotment` `letter is void and therefore` `no (legal) right ensues unto` `the transferee company.`
20.	`Issue of Renewal`	• `No clause for renewal` `and no reliefs for` `renewal sought.`

¶314

SCA No. 13371 of 2013

¶315

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Mother Dairy Fruit &` `Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.`
	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Lease deed with respect to` `parcel of land admeasuring` `27458 sq.mts. issued in` `favour of National Dairy` `Development Board executed on` `28.6.2001. (Page 48-74)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`29.5.1989 to 28.5.2019`

¶316

Page 38 of 273

¶317

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶318

`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Lease due to expire on` `29.5.2019`
`5.`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`National Development Dairy` `Board.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Order dated 13.8.2008, the` `Hon’ble High Court of Delhi` `sanctioning the amalgamation` `scheme between Dhara Ltd. and` `the` `petitioner.(separately` `given)`
`7.`	`Date of Application` `for transfer made` `to KPT.`	`No specific application` `referred in this petition`
`8.`	`Response by KPT to` `application for` `transfer.`	`NA`
`9.`	`Original lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 1.80 per sq.mt. however` `w.e.f from 1.7.1994 the same` `was revised to Rs. 11 per` `sq.mt`
`10.`	`Revised lease rent` `rate under 2011` `order`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per` `s.m/ annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per` `s.m/ annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/-per` `s.m/ annum 2% escalation`
11.	`Revised lease rent` `under 2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every` `year from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category ?`	`Category A in 2011` `Category G1 in 2014.`
`13.`	`Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order :` `Retrospective/Prosp` `ective`	`Jan, 2014 – Nov, 2014: = Rs.` `3,42,20,585/-` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `0.00/-`
14.	`Breakup of amount` `due : (As per KPT's` `claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 1,59,257/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 47,70,827/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 61,20,387/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 58,09,018/-`
		`2011-2013 = Rs. 31,76,632/-` `2014-` `2018` `=` `Rs.`

¶319

Page 39 of 273

¶320

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶321

		`3,42,20,585/-` `* Amount payable towards` `transfer fees amounting to` `Rs.` `1,07,36,710/-` `&` `interest for delay payment` `have not been included.`
15.	`Date of petition :`	`23.7.2013`
16.	`Prayers`	`A. To` `declare` `that` `respondents have no` `right or authority to` `demand lease rent from` `petitioner` `retrospectively` `from` `1994 and to quash and` `set aside the order` `dated 25.3.2011 and` `demand notice dated` `21.5.2013` `and` `to` `restrain` `respondents` `from making any coercive` `recovery. (Page 10)`
`17.`	`Relief Granted`	`Impugned notices and letters` `by the Port qua recovery of` `tariff with retrospective` `effect only shall remain` `stayed vide Order dated` `9.2.2015 passed in SCA No.` `16225 of 2013.`
`18.`	`Status of Public` `Premises Eviction` `proceedings`	`No proceedings initiated.`
19.	`Specific Facts :`	• `Transfer` `under` `the` `scheme of amalgamation` `in breach of mandatory` `conditions of lease and` `without prior permission` `of DPT.`
`20.`	`Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	`Transfer is in breach of the` `conditions of the lease and` `without the prior permission` `of the DPT, therefore the` `transfer to the petitioner is` `void, therefore no interest` `vests in the transferee to` `enforce the terms of lease` `Wrt to the subject land`
`21.`	`Issue of renewal`	`No clause for renewal and no` `reliefs for renewal sought`

¶322

Page 40 of 273

¶323

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶324

SCA No. 8538 of 2016

¶325

`Sr.` `No.`	`Sr. No.`	`Details`
1.	`Petitioner`	`Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables` `Pvt. Ltd.`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Lease deed with respect to` `parcel of land admeasuring 27458` `sq.mts. issued in favour of` `National Dairy Development Board` `executed on 28.6.2001. (Page` `101-121)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`29.5.1989 to 28.5.2019`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Lease due to expire on 29.5.2019`
`5.`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`National Development Dairy` `Board.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Order dated 13.8.2008, the` `Hon’ble High Court of Delhi` `sanctioning the amalgamation` `scheme between Dhara Ltd. and` `the` `petitioner.` `(separately` `given)`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made to` `KPT.`	`Letters dated 8.10.2008 & others` `the petitioner had requested DPT` `to change the name from Dhara` `Ltd. to Mother Dairy Fruit &` `Vegetables Pvt. Ltd on the` `record of the Port. (Annexure-H` `as per amendment)`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`Letter dated` `29/06/2017` `issued by the Port.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 1.80 per sq.mt. however` `w.e.f from 1.7.1994 the same was` `revised to Rs. 11per sq.mt`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `2011 TAMP order`	`1994-1999 =` `Rs. 11/- per` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/-per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`

¶326

Page 41 of 273

¶327

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶328

11.	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every` `year from 2014.`
12.	`Whether any` `change in` `category ?`	`Category A in 2011` `Category G1 in 2014.`
`13.`	`Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order:` `Retrospective/Pr` `ospective`	`Jan, 2014 – Nov, 2014: = Rs.` `3,42,20,585/-` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `0.00/-`
14.	`Breakup of` `amount due: (As` `per KPT's claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 1,59,257/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 47,70,827/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 61,20,387/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 58,09,018/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 31,76,632/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 3,42,20,585/-` `*` `Amount` `payable` `towards` `transfer fees amounting to Rs.` `1,07,36,710/- & interest for` `delay payment have not been` `included.`
15.	`Date of` `petition:`	`2.5.2016`
16.	`Prayers`	`1.` `To declare that` `respondents have no right` `to demand retrospective` `lease rent.` `2.` `To quash and set aside` `TAMP order dated` `13.11.2014.` `3.` `To quash and set aside` `consequential notification` `dated 4.12.2014` `4.` `To quash and set aside` `demand notice dated` `8.5.2015` `5.` `To restrain` `respondents from making any` `coercive recovery.` `6.` `To quash and set aside` `notice dated 27/29.6.2017` `issued by respondent no.1` `(As per amendment). (Page` `8-9)`
`17.`	`Relief Granted`	`Impugned notices and letters by` `the Port qua recovery of tariff` `with retrospective effect only` `shall remain stayed vide Order`

¶329

Page 42 of 273

¶330

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶331

		`dated 9.2.2015 passed in SCA No.` `16225 of 2013.`
`18.`	`Status of Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`No proceedings initiated.`
`19.`	`Specific Facts :`	• `Transfer under the scheme` `of amalgamation in breach` `of mandatory conditions of` `lease and without prior` `permission of DPT.`
`20.`	`Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	`Transfer is in breach of the` `conditions of the lease and` `without the prior permission of` `the DPT, therefore the transfer` `to the petitioner is void,` `therefore no interest vests in` `the transferee to enforce the`
		`terms of lease Wrt to the` `subject land`
21.	`Issue of renewal`	`No clause for renewal and no` `reliefs for renewal sought`

¶332

SCA No. 10611 of 2016

¶333

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Ineos Styrolution India Li`	`mited`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter`	`Possession note dated 6.1.1` `favour of ABS Plastics Lt` `land admeasuring 11,695 sq.m` `Indenture of lease in fav` `ABS` `Industries` `Ltd.` `15.2.1997.(Page 40-41)`	`990 in` `d. Wrt` `trs.` `our of` `dated`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`06.01.1990 to 05.01.2020.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized` `occupant` `transfer by erstwhile allo` `lessee (as the transfer ag` `have not been produced` `transfer date is not known)`	`since` `ttee /` `reement` `, the`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`ABS Industries Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Under Share Purchase Agreeme`	`nt’s.`

¶334

Page 43 of 273

¶335

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶336

		`* Petitioner seeks change on the` `premise of the change of name of` `the company @pg. 62/63.`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`Show cause notice dated 18.2.2014` `as to why transfer effected` `without previous permission, and` `the copies of agreement of` `transfer called for.(Page 66)`
		• `Reply` `by` `INEOS` `dated` `29.4.2014 @ pg.67, however` `copies of the agreement not` `provided.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 11 per sq.mt.`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent` `rate` `under 2011 Tamp` `Order:`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`
`11.` 10.	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `2014 TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12.` `11.`	`Whether there` `is change in` `category?`	`C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014.`
`13.` `12.`	`Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order:` `Retrospective/P` `rospective`	`Jan, 2014 – Nov, 2014: = Rs.` `1,08,78,434/-` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `2,49,72,212/-`
`14.` 12.1	`Breakup of` `amount due from` `allottee: (As` `per KPT's` `claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 67,830/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 11,90,551/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 14,67,956/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 23,56,479/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 9,87,997/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 3,58,50,646/-` `* Amount payable towards transfer` `fees & interest for delay payment` `have not been included.`

¶337

Page 44 of 273

¶338

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶339

`15.` `1` `7` `13.`	`Date of` `petition:`	`29.6.2016`
`16.` 14.	`Prayers`	`1. To quash and set aside TAMP` `Order dated 25.3.2011.` `2. Setting aside the notices` `issued by KPT in relation to` `the demand of lease rent as` `per the orders of TAMP.` `3. To recognize the petitioner` `as the lessee of the land` `without payment of transfer` `fees.` `4. Setting aside the notice` `dated 30.05.2016 @pg.38.`
`17.` `15.`	`Relief Granted`	`Interim relief granted on the` `condition of deposit of 2.50` `crores which ispaid by the Party.`
`18.` `16.`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`
`19.` 17.	`Specific` `Facts:`	• `The transfer of premises has` `been effected under the` `Share Transfer Agreement’s` `which have not been produced` `by the petitioner either` `before DPT or this Hon’ble` `Court.`
`20.`	`Nature of` `preliminar` `y` `objections`	• `The change of name of the` `company is a consequence to` `the change of the share` `holding of the company under` `the` `Share` `Purchase` `Agreement’s and is a façade` `to cover the transfer in` `contravention` `of` `the` `conditions of deed. The` `transferee is not the lessee` `under the lease deed, and` `not entitled to enforcement` `of rights on the basis of` `lease.`
`21.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	• `NA`

¶340

Page 45 of 273

¶341

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶342

	SC	A No. 13409 of 2014
`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Lease deed WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring` `4,68,103` `sq.mts` `issued in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd. on 30.5.2004.` `Lease deed WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring 15,602 sq.mts issued` `in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd.` `Lease deed WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring 55,050 sq.mts issued` `in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd.` `Lease deed WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring` `1,16,774` `sq.mts` `issued in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd.` `Lease deed WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring 86,700 sq.mts issued` `in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd.` `Letter of allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 10,430 sq.mts` `issued in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd.` `Letter of allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 6,589 sq.mts` `issued in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd.` `Letter of allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 220 acres issued` `in favour of Indian Oil` `Corporation Ltd on 28/10/1993.` `Thereafter, M/s. IOCL surrendered` `the portion of land of 54.18` `acres on 05/04/2002. (Page 131-B)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`1.2.1988 to 31.1.2018 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 4,68,103 sq.mts.` `31.10.1984 to 30.11.2012 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 15,602 sq.mts.`
		`15.2.1990 to 14.2.2020 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 55,050 sq.mts.`

¶343

Page 46 of 273

¶344

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶345

	`22.10.1988 to 31.1.2018 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 116774 sq.mts.` `1.12.1982 to 30.11.2012 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 86,700 sq.mts.` `15.9.1976 to 14.9.2006 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 6,589 sq.mts.` `21.10.1982 to 14.9.2006 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 10,430 sq.mts.` `04/12/1993 to 03/12/2023 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 165.82 acres (671078` `sq. mtrs)`
`4.` `Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`For land admeasuring 4,68,103` `sq.mts the lease has expired on` `31.1.2018.`
	`For land admeasuring 15,602` `sq.mts the lease stands expired` `on 30.11.2012.`
	`For land admeasuring 55,050` `sq.mts the lease is valid upto` `14.2.2020`
	`For land admeasuring 1,16,774` `sq.mts the lease has expired on` `31.1.2018.`
	`For land admeasuring 86,700` `sq.mts the lease stands expired` `on 30.11.2012.`
	`For land admeasuring 6,589 sq.mts` `the lease stands expired on` `14.9.2006.`
	`For land admeasuring 10,430` `sq.mts the lease stands expired` `on 14.9.2006.`
	`For land admeasuring 671078` `sq.mts the lease stands going to` `be expired on 03/12/2023.`

¶346

Page 47 of 273

¶347

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶348

`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No change/transfer`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 24 per sq. mtr/per annum in` `r/o land admg. 671078 sq. mtrs` `Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr/per annum in` `r/o land admg. 55050 sq. mtrs` `Rs. 0.90/- per sq.mtrs/per annum` `r/o land admg. 6589 sq. mtrs` `Rs. 2.70/- per sq.mtrs/per annum` `r/o land admg. 10430 sq. mtrs` `Rs. 3.60 per sq. mtrs/Per annum &` `Rs. 11/- per sq. mtrs/per annum` `from 01/07/1994 in r/o land admg.` `116774 sq. mtrs., 468103 sq.` `mtrs, 86700 sq. mtrs & 15602 sq.` `mtrs.`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP order 2011` `:`	`All above lands in C1 Category` `1994-1999= Rs. 24/- per sm/annum` `in r/o land admg. 671078 sq. mtrs` `1994-1999=` `Rs. 11/- per` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per sm/` `annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per sm/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2013= Rs.80.4/-per` `sm/annum 2% escalation`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`Land admeasuring & 671078 sq.` `mtrs, 86700 sq. mtrs & 15602 sq.` `mtrs` `2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.` `Land admeasuring 116774 sq.` `mtrs.`

¶349

Page 48 of 273

¶350

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶351

		`2014: Rs. 108` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
		`Land admeasuring 4,68,103 sq.mts.` `& 55050 sq. mtrs.`
		`2014: Rs. 597.59` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
		`Land admeasuring 10430 sq.mts. &` `6589 sq. mtrs.`
		`2014: Rs. 108/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`Land admeasuring 4,68,103 sq.mts` `C1 as per order of 2011` `G2 as per order of 2014`
		`Land admeasuring 6,71,078 sq.mts`
		`C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014` `Land admeasuring 15,602 sq.mts` `:` `C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014` `Land admeasuring 55,050 sq.mts`
		`C1 as per order of 2011` `G2 as per order of 2014`
		`Land` `admeasuring` `1,16,774` `sq.mts` `:` `No change in category.` `Land admeasuring 86,700 sq.mts :`
		`C1 as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014` `Land admeasuring 6,589 sq.mts` `:` `No change in category` `Land admeasuring 10,430 sq.mts` `:`

¶352

Page 49 of 273

¶353

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶354

		`No change`	`in cat`	`egory.`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount due :` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`Land admea` `1994-1999` `1999-2004` `2004-2009` `2009-2011` `2011-2013` `2014- 2018`	`suring` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.`	`4,68,103 sq.mts` `27,14,997/-` `5,18,56,450/-` `10,17,51,549/-` `7,35,87,376/-` `3,96,04,100/-` `109,02,95,274/-`
		`Land admea` `1994-1999` `1999-2004` `2004-2009`	`suring` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.`	`6,71,078 sq.mts` `0.00/-` `0.00/-` `0.00/-`
		`2009-2011` `2011-2013` `2014- 2018` `Land admea` `1994-1999` `1999-2004` `2004-2009`	`= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `suring` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.`	`1,69,55,838/-` `2,39,54,572/-` `313,68,76,853/-` `116774 sq.mts` `6,77,290/-` `1,29,36,224/-` `1,72,79,049/-`
		`2009-2011` `2011-2013` `2014- 2018` `Land admea` `1994-1999`	`= Rs.` `= Rs.` `= Rs.` `suring` `= Rs.`	`1,75,01,552/-` `95,71,342/-` `0.00` `55050 sq.mts` `0.00/-`
		`1999-2004`	`= Rs.`	`39,38,829/-`
		`2004-2009`	`= Rs.`	`45,52,123/-`
		`2009-2011`	`= Rs.`	`60,95,116/-`
		`2011-2013`	`= Rs.`	`68,87,244/-`
		`2014- 2018`	`= Rs.`	`16,73,40,907/-`
		`Land adme`	`asurin`	`g 10430 sq.mts &`
		`6589 sq.`	`mtrs`
		`1994-1999` `1999-2004`	`= Rs.` `= Rs.`	`6,76,056/-` `24,50,850/-`
		`2004-2009`	`= Rs.`	`11,92,532/-`
		`2009-2011`	`= Rs.`	`0.00`
		`2011-2013` `2014- 2018`	`= Rs.` `= Rs.`	`0.00/-` `0.00/-`
		`Land adme`	`asurin`	`g 86700 sq.mts &`
		`15602 sq.`	`mtrs`
		`1994-1999`	`= Rs.`	`5,93,351/-`
		`1999-2004`	`= Rs.`	`1,13,33,015/-`
		`2004-2009`	`= Rs.`	`1,51,37,627/-`
		`2009-2011`	`= Rs.`	`1,55,31,344/-`
		`2011-2013`	`= Rs.`	`84,31,645/-`
		`2014- 201`	`= Rs.`	`486851469/-`
		`* Amount` `for delay`	`payable` `paymen`	`,,,` `towards interest` `t have not been`
		`included.`
14.	`Date of`	`8.09.2014`

¶355

Page 50 of 273

¶356

	`petition :`
15.	`Prayers`	`A.` `B.`	`To quash and set aside the` `notification` `dated` `11.5.2011 issued by TAMP at` `Annexure A and further` `quash and set aside the` `demands raised by KPT at` `Annexure B in respect of` `retrospective revision of` `lease rents as also demand` `towards interest.` `To direct KPT to renew` `lease` `deeds` `without` `insisting for payment of` `the` `arbitrary` `demands` `impugned.(Page 14-15)`
`16.`	`Relief Granted`	`-`
`17.`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not s` `pendi` `Gujar`	`tarted due to proceedings` `ng before the High court of` `at.`
18.	`Specific Facts:`	`NA`
`19.`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`20.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	• •	`No clause for renewal in` `the lease deed.` `Prayer 6(B): Petitioner has` `sought renewal of lease` `deeds.`

¶357

SCA No. 372 of 2016

¶358

`Sr.`			`Details`
`No.`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Bharat Petro`	`leum Cor`	`poration Ltd.`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease`	`Lease deed` `admeasuring`	`WRT pa` `2,63,107`	`rcel of land` `sq.mts issued`
	`Deed/Allottme`	`in favour`	`of Bha`	`rat Petroleum`
	`nt Letter and`	`Corporation`	`Ltd.`	`on 10.1.1991`
	`Important` `terms/clauses`	`(Page 152A)`
		`Letter of A`	`llotment`	`WRT parcel of`
		`land admea`	`suring`	`4,441 sq.mts`
		`issued in`	`favour`	`of Bharat`

¶359

Page 51 of 273

¶360

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶361

		`Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on` `23.11.1998 (Page 155)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`1.10.1983 to 31.7.2013 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts.` `23.11.1998 to 31.7.2013 co-` `terminus with land admg. 2,63,107` `for land admeasuring 4,441 sq.mts.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allott` `ee`	`Unauthorized` `occupant` `since` `31.7.2013 for land admeasuring` `2,63,107` `sq.mts.` `and` `land` `admeasuring 4,441 sq.mts.`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allott` `ee`	`Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transf` `er`	`No change/transfer`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application` `for transfer` `made to KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by` `KPT to` `application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9.`	`Original` `lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 11 per sq.mt for land` `admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts.` `Rs. 28 per sq.mt for land` `admeasuring 4,441 sq.mts.`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate` `under TAMP` `Order 2011`	`For land admeasuring 2,63,107` `sq.mts.` `1994-1999= Rs. 11/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per sm/ annum` `5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per sm/ annum` `2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs.80.4/-per sm/ annum` `2% escalation` `For land admeasuring 4441 sq.mts.`

¶362

Page 52 of 273

¶363

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶364

		`1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per sm/ annum` `5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per sm/ annum` `2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs.80.4/-per sm/ annum` `2% escalation`
11.	`Revised` `lease rent` `under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`For land admeasuring 2,63,107` `sq.mts.` `2014: Rs. 905.17`
		`* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014For` `land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts.` `2014: Rs. 108/-`
		`* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`For land admeasuring 2,63,107` `sq.mts.` `C1 as per order of 2011` `G2 as per order of 2014` `For land admeasuring 4,4441` `sq.mts.` `No change in category.`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount due :` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`For land admeasuring 2,63,107` `sq.mts.` `1994-1999 = Rs.14,815/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 2,91,46,994/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 3,89,31,943/-`
		`2009-2011 = Rs. 3,93,25,061/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 2,15,39,393/-`
		`2014- 2018 = Rs. 86,61,91,083/-`
		`For land admeasuring 4441 sq.mts.`
		`1999-2004 = Rs. 11529/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-`
		`2009-2011 = Rs. 3,17,648/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 1,75,295/-`
		`2014- 2018 = Rs. 0.00` `* Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`
14.	`Date of` `petition :`	`18.12.2015`

¶365

Page 53 of 273

¶366

15.	`Prayers`	`To set aside the order dated` `13.11.2014.`
		`b.` `To set aside the demand` `notes` `raising` `Rs.` `32,49,48,581/- levied for` `the revised rentals raised` `by KPT on the basis of TAMP` `order.` `c.` `To direct that the amount of` `Rs. 1,68, 38,966/- paid` `under protest for period` `2014-2015` `and` `Rs.` `2,34,38,600/- be adjusted` `with future rentals. (Page` `54-55)`
`16.`	`Relief` `Granted`	`No interim relief`
`17.`	`Status of` `Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`NA`
18.	`Specific` `Facts :`	`NA`
`19.`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`20.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`No renewal clause in the lease` `deed and no reliefs for renewal` `sought.`

¶367

SCA No. 16530 of 2013

¶368

`Sr.` `No.`			`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`M/s. Hindu` `Corporatio`	`stan Petroleum` `n Ltd.`
`2`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Letter of` `land adm` `issued in` `Petroleum` `1990`	`Allotment WRT` `easuring 78,37` `favour of M/s.` `Corporation Ltd`	`parcel of` `0 sq.mts` `Hindustan` `on 19-02-`
		`Letter of`	`Allotment WRT`	`parcel of`
		`land adm`	`easuring 50,79`	`9 sq.mts`
		`issued in`	`favour of M/s.`	`Hindustan`

¶369

Page 54 of 273

¶370

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶371

	`Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 20-` `03-1998`
	`Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 2,786 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd .` `Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd on` `16/10/1984` `Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 11-11-` `1983`
`3` `Duration of` `lease/holding`	`1.3.1990 to 29.2.2020 for a period` `of 30 years for land admeasuring` `78,370 sq.mts.` `20.3.1998 to 29.2.2020 for a period` `of land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts.` `1.8.1984 to 31.7.2014 for a period` `of 30 years for land admeasuring` `2,786 sq.mts.` `1.11.1984 to 31.10.2014 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts.`
	`1.12.1983 to 30.11.2013 for a` `period of 30 years for land` `admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts.`
`4` `Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Petitioner` `has` `handed` `over` `possession WRT land admeasuring` `1,28,618 sq.mts.` `With respect to land admeasuring` `78,370 sq.mts and 50,799 sq.mts.` `the leases are due to expire in` `2020.`
	`With respect to land admeasuring` `91,567 sq.mts and 2,786 sq.mts. the` `leases stand expired as on`

¶372

Page 55 of 273

¶373

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶374

		`1.12.2013` `and` `1.8.2014` `respectively.`
`5`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`M/s. Hindustan Petroleum` `Corporation Ltd.`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`N.A.`
`7`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`N.A.`
`8`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`(i) Land admg.1,28,618 sq.mts =` `Rs. 2.70 per sq. mtrs/per annum.` `ii) Land admg. 78,370 sq.mts =` `Rs. 3.60 per sq. mtrs/per annum.` `iii) Land admg. 91567 sq.mts =` `Rs. 2.70 per sq. mtrs/per annum.` `iv) Land admg. 50,799 sq.mts =` `Rs. 28/- per sq. mtrs/per annum` `v) Land admg. 2786 sq.mts =` `Rs. 11/- per sq. mtrs/per annum`
`10`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts` `& 128618 sq. mtrs..` `1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation` `2009-2013= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts.` `& 50,799 & 2786 sq. mtrs.` `1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation` `2009-2013= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation`
`11`	`Revised lease`	`For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts`

¶375

Page 56 of 273

¶376

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶377

	`rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`& 128618 sq. mtrs.` `2014: Rs. 597.59/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts.` `& 50,799 & 2786 sq. mtrs.` `2014: Rs. 108/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts` `& 128618 sq. mtrs.` `C1 as per order of 2011` `G2 as per order of 2014` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts` `& land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts &` `2,786 sq.mts.` `There is no change in the category.`
`13`	`Breakup of` `amount due :` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`For land admeasuring 128618 sq.` `mtrs.` `1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-`
		`2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 12,17,23,960/-` `For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts` `1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-`
		`2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 26,49,72,483/-` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts` `& land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts &` `2,786 sq.mts`

¶378

Page 57 of 273

¶379

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶380

		`1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 0.00/-` `* Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`
`14`	`Date of` `petition:`	`18.10.2013`
`15`	`Prayers`	`A. To admit and allow the present` `petition.` `B. To set aside the order dated` `25.3.2011 of TAMP.` `C. To set aside the demand notes` `claiming` `amount` `of` `Rs.` `32,58,74,733/- levied for the` `revised rentals and interest` `with retrospective effect by` `KPT on the basis of TAMP order` `dated 25.3.2011.` `D. To direct that amount of Rs.` `3,28,42,389/-` `paid` `under` `protest for period 2012-2013` `and` `amount` `of` `Rs.` `1,26,31,037/-(for 2 plots) for` `year 2013-2014 be adjusted` `with future rentals. (Page 25-` `26)`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Relief granted vide order dated` `4.12.2013 passed in SCA No. 16225` `of 2013 observing that the impugned` `notices and letters issued by KPT` `qua the recovery of tariff with` `retrospective effect only shall` `remain stayed till then.`
`17`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`No proceedings initiated.`
`18`	`Specific` `Facts :`	`-`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`-` `-`

¶381

Page 58 of 273

¶382

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶383

20Issue of No renewal clause in the lease deed
Renewaland no reliefs sought.

¶384

SCA No. 6909 of 2018

¶385

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation` `Ltd.`
`2`	`Lessee/Allotee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 19-02-` `1990` `Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 20-03-` `1998` `Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 2,786 sq.mts issued` `in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd .` `Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum` `Corporation` `Ltd` `on` `16/10/1984` `Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts` `issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan` `Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 11-11-` `1983`
`3`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`1.3.1990 to 29.2.2020 for a period` `of 30 years for land admeasuring` `78,370 sq.mts.` `20.3.1998 to 29.2.2020 for a period` `of land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts.` `1.8.1984 to 31.7.2014 for a period` `of 30 years for land admeasuring` `2,786 sq.mts.`

¶386

Page 59 of 273

¶387

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶388

		`1.11.1984 to 31.10.2014 for a period` `of 30 years for land admeasuring` `1,28,618 sq.mts.` `1.12.1983 to 30.11.2013 for a period` `of 30 years for land admeasuring` `91,567 sq.mts.`
`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Petitioner` `has` `handed` `over` `possession WRT land admeasuring` `1,28,618 sq.mts.` `With respect to land admeasuring` `78,370 sq.mts and 50,799 sq.mts. the` `leases are due to expire in 2020.` `With respect to land admeasuring` `91,567 sq.mts and 2,786 sq.mts. the` `leases stand expired as on 1.12.2013` `and 1.8.2014 respectively.`
`5`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation` `Ltd.`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`N.A.`
`7`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`N.A.`
`8`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`i) Land admg.1,28,618 sq.mts = Rs.` `2.70 per sq. mtrs/per annum.` `ii) Land admg. 78,370 sq.mts =` `Rs. 3.60 per sq. mtrs/per annum.` `iii) Land admg. 91567 sq.mts = Rs.` `2.70 per sq. mtrs/per annum.` `iv) Land admg. 50,799 sq.mts = Rs.` `28/- per sq. mtrs/per annum` `v) Land admg. 2786 sq.mts =` `Rs. 11/- per sq. mtrs/per annum`
`10`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts &` `128618 sq. mtrs..` `1994-1999 = Rs. 11/-per sm/per`

¶389

Page 60 of 273

¶390

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶391

		`annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/per` `annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ per` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/per` `annum 2% escalation` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts.` `& 50,799 & 2786 sq. mtrs.`
		`1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/per` `annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/ per` `annum 2% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/per` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2013= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/per` `annum 2% escalation`
`11`	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts &` `128618 sq. mtrs.` `2014: Rs. 597.59/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts.` `& 50,799 & 2786 sq. mtrs.` `2014: Rs. 108/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts &` `128618 sq. mtrs.` `C1 as per order of 2011` `G2 as per order of 2014` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts &` `land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts &` `2,786 sq.mts.` `There is no change in the category.`
`13`	`Breakup of` `amount due :` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`For land admeasuring 128618 sq.` `mtrs.` `1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-`

¶392

Page 61 of 273

¶393

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶394

		`2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 12,17,23,960/-` `For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts` `1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 26,49,72,483/-` `For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts &` `land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts &` `2,786 sq.mts` `1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 0.00/-` `* Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`
`14`	`Date of` `petition :`	`9.4.2018`
`15`	`Prayers`	`A. To admit and allow the present` `petition.` `B. To set aside the order dated` `13.11.2014 of TAMP.` `C. To set aside the demand notes` `claiming` `amount` `of` `Rs.` `18,49,65,895/- + interest and` `Rs. 13,79,92,367/- + GST` `levied for the revised rentals` `with retrospective effect by` `KPT on the basis of TAMP order` `dated 13.11.2014 for land` `admeasuring` `91,567` `and` `1,28,618 sq.mts.` `D. To set aside the interest` `demanded at 18% which is` `exorbitant, unreasonable and`

¶395

Page 62 of 273

¶396

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶397

		`without any basis.` `E. To decide the representation` `dated 21.10.2015 after giving` `hearing to the petitioner. To` `direct the amount of Rs.` `15,53,75,124/-` `and` `Rs.` `3,28,42,388/-` `paid` `under` `protest for the period from` `1994 to 2013 be adjusted with` `future rentals.(Page 46-47)`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Relief granted vide order dated` `4.12.2013 passed in SCA No. 16225 of` `2013 observing that the impugned` `notices and letters issued by KPT` `qua the recovery of tariff with` `retrospective effect only shall` `remain stayed till then.`
`17`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`No proceedings initiated.`
`18`	`Specific` `Facts :`	`NA`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`20`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`No renewal clause in the lease deed` `and no reliefs sought.`

¶398

SCA No. 9342 of 2015

¶399

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Oil and Natural Gas Corporation` `Ltd. (ONGC)`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Allotment letter WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 7,330 sq.mts` `issued in favour of ONGC on` `9.3.1993 for allotment of land on` `Leave and Licence Agreement. (Page` `34)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Last renewal was from 23.8.2006 to` `22.02.2007. (Page 37)`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `23.2.2007`

¶400

Page 63 of 273

¶401

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶402

`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`Oil and Natural Gas Corporation` `Ltd. (ONGC)`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`NA`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 1,20,945/- (for 11 months)`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/- Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 37.80 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr /per` `annum` `Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`There is no change in category.`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount due :`	`1999-2004=Rs. 7,99,116 /-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 7,35,053/-` `2009-2011= Rs. 6,68,518/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 12,64,152/-` `2014-2018 = Rs. 45,25,542/-` `*Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`
14.	`Date of` `petition :`	`7.5.2015`
15.	`Prayers`	`Para 29 :` `a.` `To declare that action taken` `by respondent authorities as` `bad and illegal.`

¶403

Page 64 of 273

¶404

		`b.` `To declare that in absence of` `any retrospective revision`
		`clause in the Leave and`
		`License` `Agreement,`
		`notification dated 6.5.2011`
		`by TAMP is not applicable to`
		`petitioner` `inasmuch` `it`
		`pertains to retrospective`
		`revision of TAMP rental`
		`rates.`
		`c.` `To declare that KPT has`
		`wrongly claimed interest on`
		`account of its delay in`
		`submitting bills to ONGC.` `d.` `To set aside final bill of`
		`Rs. 36,71,410/- for the`
		`period upto 10.9.2008.`
		`e.` `To set aside the differential`
		`retrospective bill of Rs.`
		`31,61,953/- for period from`
		`1.7.1999 to 21.2.2007.`
		`f.` `To set aside the interest`
		`claimed` `by` `KPT` `in`
		`compensation bill for the`
		`period from 22.2.2007 to`
		`21.2.2012.`
		`g.` `To set aside the order dated` `19.2.2015 in PP Act Case no.` `17 of 2013 to the extent of`
		`holding ONGC as unauthorized`
		`occupant and for initiating`
		`recovery` `proceeding` `for`
		`amount of Rs. 1,22,10,827/-`
		`h.` `To direct KPT to accept the`
		`cheques for payment of`
		`revised rentals for period`
		`from 22.2.2012 to 21.2.2013`
		`and` `from` `22.2.2012` `to`
		`23.12.2014.`
		`i.` `To direct KPT to refund Rs.`
		`52,98,818.53/- as on 5.5.2015`
		`inclusive of compounding`
		`interest and future 18%`
		`compound interest.`
		`Para 29 :`
		`To set aside show cause notice`
		`dated 23.7.2015`
		`To set aside recovery order dated`
		`17.3.2016 in PP Act Case no. 1 of`
		`2015.(Page 28-31)`
`16.`	`Relief Granted`	`No interim relief`
`17.`	`Status of`	`Proceedings have been concluded`

¶405

Page 65 of 273

¶406

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶407

	`Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`wherein the petitioner has been` `found to be in authorized` `possession.`
18.	`Specific` `Facts :`	`NA`
`19.`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`20.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`No clause for automatic renewal in` `the Leave and License Agreement` `and no reliefs for renewal sought.`

¶408

SCA No. 16225 of 2013

¶409

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`M/s. LAXMI MOTORS LTD`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Lease deed WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring 2,000 sq.mts issued in` `favour of M/s. Laxmi Motors Ltd.` `on 29.11.1984 (Page 19)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`7.11.1983 to 6.11.2013 for a` `period of 30 years.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized` `occupant` `since` `7.11.2013`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`M/s. LAXMI MOTORS LTD`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`NA`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`

¶410

Page 66 of 273

¶411

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶412

`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 2.70 per sq.mt./per annum`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent` `rate` `under 2011 Tamp` `Order:`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 36/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009=Rs. 46.2/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011=Rs.` `94.80/-per` `s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `2014 TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 403.2` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether there` `is change in` `category?`	`F2 as per order of 2011` `F2 as per order of 2014`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount due from` `allottee: (As` `per KPT's` `claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16,820/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 2,37,845/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 3,20,854/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 3,47,048/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 1,85,578/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 87,05,134/-` `** interest for delay payment not` `included in the dues.` `* 3 times TAMP approved rate` `charged from 01/10/2016.`
`14.`	`Date of` `petition:`	`25.9.2013`
15.	`Prayers`	`Para 18` `(A)` `i.` `To quash and set aside the` `order dated 25.3.2011 passed by` `TAMP & amended by corrigendum` `dated 17.8.2011.` `ii.` `To set aside the demand` `notice and/or letters issued by` `KPT.` `iii.` `To quash and set aside Land` `Policy 2004, 2010 and any other` `policy, order or direction` `prescribing fixation of lease` `rentals on the basis of market` `valuation to the extent the same` `prescribes fixation of lease` `rentals on the basis of market` `valuation.` `(B)` `i. To command respondent no.2 to`

¶413

Page 67 of 273

¶414

		`grant renewal of lease with` `respect to land admeasuring 2000` `sq.mts for the period of 30` `years starting from 7.11.2013.` `ii. To command respondent no.2 to` `grant refund or adjustment for` `lease rental amounts paid in` `excess by the petitioner.`
`16.`	`Relief` `Granted`	`Order dated 26.2.2015, the Hon’ble` `High Court has directed the` `respondent not to take any` `coercive steps.`
`17.`	`Status of` `Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Eviction order passed by the` `Estate Officer and appeal pending` `before the Appellate Court`
18.	`Specific` `Facts:`	`NA`
`19.`	`Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	`NA`
`20.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`F. Renewal` `subject` `to` `conditions and terms being` `fulfilled` `and` `upon` `discretion of lessor.` `G. Para 18 (B)(i) of the prayer` `is seeking renewal of lease` `agreement.`

¶415

SCA No. 673 of 2014

¶416

`Sr.` `No.`			`Details`
1.	`Petitioner`	`Indian Farmers` `operative Ltd.`	`Fertilizer` `(IFFCO)`	`Co-`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease`	`Lease deed W` `admeasuring 2,`	`RT parcel` `54,820 sq.m`	`of land` `ts issued`
	`Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`in favour` `Fertilizer Co` `25.9.1971 (Pag` `Supplementary`	`of Indian` `-operative` `e 45/57A)` `lease also`	`Farmers` `Ltd. on` `executed`
		`amending the`	`existing`	`lease in`
		`terms of the`	`measurement`	`of land`
		`which stood`	`at 2,56,09`	`1 sq.mts`
		`instead of 2,`	`54,820 sq.m`	`ts.(Page`

¶417

Page 68 of 273

¶418

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶419

		`65A)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`1.7.1971 to 30.6.2001 i.e. for a` `period of 30 years.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `1.7.2001.`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-` `operative Ltd. (IFFCO)`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No change/transfer`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`No such application was made.`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 1,15,240.95/- (yearly)`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`2001-2004 = Rs. 45.64/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 110.40/-per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `* Lease expired during the year` `2001.`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 236.52 (A category)` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
12.	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`“A” as per order of 2011` `“A” as per order of 2014`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount due : As` `per KPT's claim`	`2001-2004 = Rs. 19,72,614/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 1,87,82,749/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 5,19,36,267/-`
		`2011-2013 = Rs. 5,39,26,247/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 23,56,76,229/-` `H. The above Outstanding dues is` `without interest.`

¶420

Page 69 of 273

¶421

14.	`Date of` `petition :`	`7.1.2014`
15.	`Prayers`	`1.` `To` `direct` `the` `respondents` `to` `retrospectively renew the` `lease` `agreement` `dated` `25.9.1971 pursuant to the` `application dated 16.2.2000.` `2.` `To declare that the bills of` `compensation dated 1.11.2013` `raising the demand at such` `exorbitant rate without any` `basis is bad and illegal.` `3.` `To quash and set TAMP Order` `dated 25.3.2011 and the` `notification containing Scale` `of Rates dated 11.5.2011.` `(Amended Prayer)` `4.` `To quash and set aside Land` `Policy of 2010 to the extent,` `granting power to respondent` `to base the Scale of Rates on` `any` `criteria` `specified` `therein.` `5.` `To` `order` `that` `the` `determination of market value` `of the said lands should be` `done again and should be` `based on all factors which` `are available and the rates` `which may be high/low.` `6.` `To restrain respondents from` `taking coercive steps. (Page` `25)`
`16.`	`Relief Granted`	`Order dated 22.1.2014, the Hon’ble` `Court granted relief restraining` `respondents from taking any co-` `ercive` `measures` `against` `petitioners with regards to the` `possession of the property.`
`17.`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not initiated.`
`18.`	`Specific` `Facts :`	`NA`
19.	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
20.	`Issue of`	• `Renewal subject to conditions`

¶422

Page 70 of 273

¶423

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶424

`Renewal`	`and terms being fulfilled and`
	`upon discretion of lessor.`
	• `Para 11 (A) of the prayer`
	`clause is with respect to`
	`renewal of lease agreement.`

¶425

SCA No. 2607 of 2012

¶426

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
1.	`Petitioner`	`Indian Farmers Fertilize Co-` `operative Ltd. (IFFCO)`
2.	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Lease deed executed WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 4,13,509 sq.mts` `issued in favour of IFFCO vide` `letter dated 4.1.1988 (Page 51)` `Lease deed executed WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 35,961 sq.mts` `issued in favour of IFFCO vide` `letter dated 4.1.1988(Page 68)`
3.	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`8.3.1978 to 7.3.2008 with respect` `to land admeasuring 4,13,509 for` `a period of 30 years.` `19.4.1978 to 18.4.2008 with` `respect to land admeasuring` `35,961 sq.mts. for a period of 30` `years.`
4.	`Status of` `lessee/` `allottee`	`Unauthorized` `occupant` `since` `8.3.2008 and 19.4.2008.`
5.	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allot` `tee`	`Indian Farmers Fertilize Co-` `operative Ltd.`
6.	`Nature of` `change/trans` `fer`	`NA`
7.	`Date of` `Application` `for transfer` `made to KPT.`	`NA`
8.	`Response by KPT` `to` `application` `for` `transfer.`	`N.A.`

¶427

Page 71 of 273

¶428

9.	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`0.45 Paisa per sq.mt with respect` `to land admeasuring 4,13,509` `sq.mts and 35,961 sq.mts.`
10.	`Revised lease` `rent rate` `under TAMP` `Order 2011`	`1994-1999 =` `Rs. 11/- per` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/-per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent under` `2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 236.52` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
12.	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`Category A in 2011` `Category A in 2014.`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount` `due: (As` `per KPT's` `Claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 1,34,45,606/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 1,94,48,567/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 2,02,35,139/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 7,10,23,622/-`
		• `Diff. bill for the period` `from 1994 to 2008 not issued` `to the party due to court` `case pending in the High` `Court of Gujarat.`
14.	`Date of` `petition :`	`16.2.2012`
15.	`Prayers`	`C. To direct respondent no.1 to` `dispose off the application` `for renewal of lands and` `fixing rate commensurate and` `appropriate to the nature of` `industry of the petitioner.` `D. To set aside the bills of` `compensation issued by KPT.` `E. To direct respondent no.2 to` `exercise powers under the` `Act` `and` `conditionality` `clause available in order of` `TAMP dated 28.8.2003 and` `renew the lease at the rates` `commensurate and appropriate` `to the nature of industry of`

¶429

Page 72 of 273

¶430

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶431

		`the petitioner.` `E/1 To quash and set aside` `orders dated 25.3.2011 and` `13.11.2014, and Notifications` `dated 11.5.2011 and 4.12.2014` `issued by TAMP` `F. To Direct respondent no.2 to` `correctly apply category B2` `to the petitioner and charge` `rate accordingly and recover` `upfront premium based on` `such rate for the entire` `period of the agreement` `instead of applying changes` `of slab.` `G. To direct respondent no.2 to` `apply the rate prevalent on` `the date of renewal for` `calculation of the upfront` `premium instead of as` `prevalent upon receipt of`
		`approval.(Page 45-46)`
16.	`Relief Granted`	`Vide order dated 22.3.2013, the` `interim relief was granted in` `terms of staying the operation of` `bills of compensation on a` `condition that petitioner shall` `pay and continue to pay at least` `on the basis of the rates fixed` `in respect of the category B.`
17.	`Status of` `Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not started due to court case.`
18.	`Specific` `Facts :`	• `GOI has returned the` `recommendation of renewal of` `lease by DPT stating` `interalia, if it not` `possible of charge the lease` `rent at the commercial` `rates, take the possession` `of the land from IFFCO (Page` `358)` • `Vide letter of 5.4.2002 by` `KPT, it was informed to` `IFFCO that, the` `recommendation of renewal of` `lease at Rs. 16 was` `provisional and subject to` `revision of rate approved by` `TAMP for which undertakin`

¶432

Page 73 of 273

¶433

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶434

			`wasgiven`	`by IFF`	`CO.`
19.	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
20.	`Issue of` `Renewal`	•	`Renewal` `conditions`	`sub` `and`	`ject` `terms`	`to` `being`
			`fulfilled`	`a`	`nd`	`upon`
			`discretion`	`of le`	`ssor.`
		•	`Para 16 (`	`C) of`	`the`	`prayer`
			`clause is`	`with`	`resp`	`ect to`
			`renewal of`	`lease`	`agree`	`ment.`

¶435

SCA No. 5218 of 2014

¶436

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`PSL Limited.`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Leave and License agreement on` `temporary basis WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 50,000 sq.mts` `issued in favour of Punj Sons` `Pvt. Ltd. (PSL) vide letter dated` `18.11.2002 (Page 26)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Initial allotment was from` `1.11.2002 to 31.1.2003 i.e. for` `a period of 3 months which was` `further extended upto a period of` `4 years i.e. upto 31.7.2007`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allott` `ee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `1.8.2007.`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allott` `ee`	`PSL HOLDINGS LTD.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transf` `er`	`Not available`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application` `for transfer` `made to KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by` `KPT to`	`N.A.`

¶437

Page 74 of 273

¶438

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶439

	`application` `for transfer.`
`9.`	`Original` `lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 1.50 per sq.mt. / per month.`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate` `under TAMP` `Order 2011`	`2002-2004 = Rs. 43.76 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum`
11.	`Revised` `lease rent` `under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr /per` `annum` `Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`There is no change in category.`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount due : (As` `per KPT's claim)`	`2002-2004 = Rs. 31,43,000/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 41,84,007/-` `2009-2011= Rs. 2,44,41,287/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 1,94,94,439/-` `2014-2018 = Rs. 4,50,39,996/-` `*Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`
14.	`Date of petition` `:`	`7.4.2014.`
15.	`Prayers`	`22.` `To admit and allow the` `petition.` `23.` `To declare that bills` `of compensation raised are` `unreasonable and without` `any basis.` `24.` `To` `declare` `clause` `6.2.2.2(e)` `and` `clause` `6.2.2.3(g) of Land Policy,` `2010 being unreasonable and` `arbitrary.` `25.` `To set aside Land` `Policy 2010 and 2014. (Page` `21-22)`
`16.`	`Relief Granted`	`Vide order dated 22.04.2014, the` `Hon’ble Court granted relief` `staying` `the` `operation` `and` `implementation of Bills of` `Compensation` `and` `further`

¶440

Page 75 of 273

¶441

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶442

		`restraining respondents from` `taking coercive steps.`
`17.`	`Status of Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`PP Act Case no. 2 of 2013` `concluded holding the petitioner` `to be in unauthorized occupation` `of the subject premises.`
18.	`Specific Facts :`	`Possession handed back to DPT` `pending thepetition.`
`19.`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`N.A.`
`20.`	`Issue of Renewal`	`No clause for renewal in the` `agreement and no reliefs for` `renewal sought.`

¶443

SCA No. 5219 of 2014

¶444

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`PSL Limited.`
	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and Important` `terms/clauses`	`Leave and License agreement` `on temporary basis WRT parcel` `of land admeasuring 50,000` `sq.mts issued in favour of` `Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd.(PSL) vide` `letter dated 27.5.2004 (Page` `25)`
`3`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Initial allotment was from` `1.6.2004 to 30.4.2005 i.e.` `for a period of 11 months` `which was further extended` `upto a period of 2 years i.e.` `upto 31.7.2007`
`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `1.8.2008.`
`5`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`PSL HOLDINGS LTD.`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No details of transfer` `provided.`
`7`	`Date of Application` `for transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NA`

¶445

Page 76 of 273

¶446

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶447

`8`	`Response by KPT to` `application for` `transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9`	`Original lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 1.50 per sq.mt.`
`10`	`Revised lease rent` `rate under TAMP` `Order 2011`	`2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum`
`11`	`Revised lease rent` `under 2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq.` `mtr /per annum` `Rate escalation @ 2% every` `year from 2014.`
`12`	`Whether any change` `in category?`	`There is no change in` `category.`
`13`	`Breakup of amount` `due : (As per KPT's` `claim)`	`2002-2004 = Rs. 16,13,000/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 57,14,007/-` `2009-2011= Rs. 2,21,90,787/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 1,94,94,439/-` `2014-2018 = Rs. 4,50,39,996/-` `*Amount` `payable` `towards` `interest for delay payment` `have not been included.`
`14`	`Date of petition :`	`7.4.2014.`
`15`	`Prayers`	`To declare that bills of` `compensation` `raised` `are` `unreasonable and without any` `basis.` `To declare clause 6.2.2.2(e)` `and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of Land` `Policy,` `2010` `being` `unreasonable and arbitrary.` `To set aside Land Policy 2010` `and 2014.(Page 20-21)`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Vide order dated 22.04.2014,` `the Hon’ble Court granted` `relief staying the operation` `and implementation of Bills` `of Compensation and further` `restraining respondents from` `taking co-ercive steps.`
`17`	`Status of Public` `Premises Eviction` `proceedings`	`PP Act Case no. 6 of 2013` `concluded holding the` `petitioner to be in` `unauthorized occupation of` `the subjectpremises.`

¶448

Page 77 of 273

¶449

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶450

`18`	`Specific Facts :`	`Possession handed back to DPT` `pending thepetition.`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`20`	`Issue of Renewal`	`No clause for renewal in the` `agreement and no reliefs` `sought.`

¶451

SCA No. 5222 of 2014

¶452

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`PSL Limited.`
	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allotment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 39,934 sq.mts` `issued in favour of Punj Sons` `Pvt.Ltd.(PSL)` `on` `18.10.1985.` `(Page 26)`
`3`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Initial allotment was from` `18.10.1985 to 31.10.1988 i.e. for` `a period of 3 years which was` `further extended for 5 years.` `Thereafter given for a period of` `11 months - 15.10.1993 to` `14.9.1994.` `Leave and License Agreement` `further extended till 31.7.2007.`
`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `1.8.2007.`
`5`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. (ON LEAVE &` `LICENSE BASIS)`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Not Available`
`7`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made to` `KPT.`	`Not Available`
`8`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`

¶453

Page 78 of 273

¶454

`9`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 2.70 per sq.mt. / per mon`	`th.`
`10`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/- Per` `mtr/per annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 37.80 Per` `mtr/per annum` `2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per` `mtr/per annum` `2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per` `mtr/per annum`	`sq.` `sq.` `sq.` `sq.`
`11`	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr` `annum` `Rate escalation @ 2% every y` `from 2014.`	`/per` `ear`
`12`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`There is no change in categor`	`y.`
`13`	`Break up of` `amount due : (As` `per KPT's claim)`	`1999-2004=Rs. 55,75,585/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 10122371/-` `2009-2011= Rs. 8124573/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 2,01,85,318/-` `2014-2018 = Rs. 3,59,72,529/-` `*Amount payable towards tra` `fees amounting to Rs. & int` `for delay payment have not` `included.`	`nsfer` `erest` `been`
`14`	`Date of petition` `:`	`7.4.2014. (07.04.2013)`
`15`	`Prayers`	`1.To direct the respondent` `renew the lease agreement` `18.10.1985 at the rates prev` `at the relevant time.` `2.To declare that bills` `compensation` `raised` `unreasonable and without` `basis.` `3.To declare clause 6.2.2` `and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of` `Policy, 2010 being unreaso` `and arbitrary.` `4.To set aside Land Policy` `and 2014.(Page 21-22)`	`s to` `dated` `alent` `of` `are` `any` `.2(e)` `Land` `nable` `2010`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Vide order dated 22.04.2014,` `Hon’ble Court granted r` `staying` `the` `operation` `implementation of Bills` `Compensation` `and` `fu`	`the` `elief` `and` `of` `rther`

¶455

Page 79 of 273

¶456

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶457

		`restraining` `respondents` `from` `taking co-ercive steps.`
`17`	`Status of Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`PP Act Case no. 5 of 2013` `concluded holding the petitioner` `to be in unauthorized occupation` `of the subject premises along` `with direction to pay` `compensation for the period` `2007 to 2015`
		`Against the aforesaid, an Appeal` `waspreferred which ispending.`
`18`	`Specific Facts :`	• `Possession handed over to` `DPT pending the petition.` • `Order passed u/s 5 and` `section 7(pg.270 of SCA` `5222/14) of PP ACT.` • `13.4.2007 undertaking to pay` `license fees if revised` `upwardly covering the` `period of license. Pg. 192`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`20`	`Issue of Renewal`	`Para 11` `(B) of the prayer clause` `is with respect to renewal of` `lease agreement.`

¶458

SCA No. 5223 of 2014

¶459

`Sr.` `No.`			`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`PSL Limite`	`d.`
`2`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Leave and` `temporary` `land admea` `issued in` `COATERS,` `29.05.1992`	`License agreement on` `basis WRT parcel of` `suring 51,000 sq.mts` `favour of` `PSL PIPE` `vide letter dated` `. (Page 26)`
`3`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Initial al` `date of oc` `period of` `further ex` `i.e. up to`	`lotment was from` `the` `cupation i.e. for a` `11 months which was` `tended up to a period` `31.7.2007`

¶460

Page 80 of 273

¶461

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶462

`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `1.8.2008.`
`5`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`PSL PIPE COATERS,` `(ON LEAVE &` `LICENSE BASIS)`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No details of transfer provided.`
`7`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NA`
`8`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 1.50 per sq.mt.`
`10`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/- Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 37.80 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum`
`11`	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr` `/per annum` `Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`There is no change in category.`
`13`	`Breakup of amount` `due : (As per` `KPT's claim)`	`1999-2004 = Rs. 71,20,620/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 2,02,39,300/-` `2009-2011= Rs. 39,87,562/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 2,48,55,255/-` `2014-2018 = Rs. 4,59,40,796/-` `*Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`
`14`	`Date of` `petition :`	`07.04.2013.`
`15`	`Prayers`	`1.To admit and allow the` `petition.` `2To direct the respondents to`

¶463

Page 81 of 273

¶464

		`renew the lease agre`	`ement`
		`dated 18.10.1985 at the`	`rates`
		`prevalent at the relevant ti`	`me.`
		`3To declare that bills`	`of`
		`compensation` `raised`	`are`
		`unreasonable and without` `basis.`	`any`
		`4To declare that bills`	`of`
		`compensation` `raised`	`are`
		`unreasonable and without` `basis.`	`any`
		`5To declare clause 6.2.2`	`.2(e)`
		`and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of` `Policy, 2010 being unreaso` `and arbitrary.`	`Land` `nable`
		`6To set aside Land Policy` `and 2014.`	`2010`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Vide order` `dated 22.04.2014,` `Hon’ble Court granted r` `staying the operation` `implementation of Bills` `Compensation` `and` `fu` `restraining respondents` `taking co-ercive steps.`	`the` `elief` `and` `of` `rther` `from`
`17`	`Status of Public` `Premises Eviction` `proceedings`	`PP Act Case no. 3 of 2013` `concluded holding the petiti` `to be in unauthorized occupa` `of the subject premises.`	`oner` `tion`
`18`	`Specific Facts :`	`Possession handed back to` `pending thepetition.`	`DPT`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`
`20`	`Issue of Renewal`	`No clause for renewal in the` `agreement and no reliefs sou`	`ght.`

¶465

SCA No. 5224 of 2014

¶466

`Sr. No.`		`Detai`	`ls`
`1` `Petitioner`	`PSL Limited`	`.`
`Lessee/Allottee`	`Leave and`	`Licens`	`e agreement on`
`Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment`	`temporary` `land admea`	`basis` `suring`	`WRT parcel of` `50,000 sq.mts`
`Letter and`	`issued in`	`favour`	`of` `PSL PIPE`
`Important`	`COATERS PV`	`T. LTD`	`., vide letter`
`terms/clauses`	`dated 08.04`	`.1992.`	`(Page 26)`

¶467

Page 82 of 273

¶468

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶469

`3`	`Duration of`	`Initial allotment was from`
	`lease/holding`	`09.12.1991 to 08.11.1992 i.e.` `for a period of 11 months which` `was further extended up to a` `period i.e. up to 31.7.2007`
`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `1.8.2008.`
`5`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`PSL PIPE COATERS PVT. LTD.,` `(ON` `LEAVE & LICENSE BASIS)`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No details of transfer provided.`
`7`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NA`
`8`	`Response by KPT to` `application for` `transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 0.50 per sq.mt.`
`10`	`Revised lease rent` `rate under TAMP` `Order 2011`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/- Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 37.80 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum` `2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq.` `mtr/per annum`
`11`	`Revised lease rent` `under 2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr /per` `annum` `Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12`	`Whether any change` `in category?`	`There is no change in category.`
`13`	`Breakup of amount` `due : (As per` `KPT's claim)`	`1999-2004 = Rs. 69,81,000/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 94,45,537/-` `2009-2011= Rs. 1,03,96,917/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 2,82,77,272/-` `2014-2018 = Rs. 4,50,39,726/-`
		`*Amount payable towards interest` `for delay payment have not been` `included.`

¶470

Page 83 of 273

¶471

`14`	`Date of petition :`	`07.04.2013.`
`15`	`Prayers`	`1 To admit and allow`	`the`
		`petition.` `2 To direct the respondent` `renew the lease agreement` `18.10.1985 at the rates prev` `at the relevant time.`	`s to` `dated` `alent`
		`3 To declare that bills` `compensation` `raised` `unreasonable and without` `basis.`	`of` `are` `any`
		`4 To declare that bills` `compensation` `raised`	`of` `are`
		`unreasonable and without` `basis.` `5 To declare clause 6.2.2` `and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of` `Policy, 2010 being unreaso` `and arbitrary.` `6 To set aside Land Policy` `and 2014.(Page 20-21)`	`any` `.2(e)` `Land` `nable` `2010`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Vide order` `dated 22.04.2014,` `Hon’ble Court granted r` `staying` `the` `operation` `implementation of Bills` `Compensation` `and` `fu` `restraining respondents` `taking co-ercive steps.`	`the` `elief` `and` `of` `rther` `from`
`17`	`Status of Public` `Premises Eviction` `proceedings`	`PP Act Case no. 4 of 2013` `concluded holding the petitio` `to be in unauthorized occupat` `of the subject premises.`	`ner` `ion`
`18`	`Specific Facts :`	`Possession handed back to` `pending thepetition.`	`DPT`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`
`20`	`Issue of Renewal`	`No clause for renewal in the` `agreement and no reliefs soug`	`ht.`

¶472

SCA No.10983 OF 2015

¶473

`Sr.`		`Details`
`No.`
1.	`Petitioner`	`PSL Limited.`

¶474

Page 84 of 273

¶475

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶476

`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Leave and License agreement on` `temporary basis WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 43695 sq.mts` `issued in favour of` `PSL LTD.,` `vide letter dated 26.07.2004`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Initial allotment was from` `26.07.2004 for a period of` `11 months which was further` `extended from time to time up` `to 16.6.2007`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `17.06.2007`
`5.`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`PSL LTD.,` `(ON LEAVE & LICENSE` `BASIS)`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No details of transfer` `provided.`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT to` `application for` `transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 2 per sq.mt./per month i.e` `Rs 87,390 per month`
`10.`	`Revised lease rent` `rate under TAMP` `Order 2011`	`17.06.2007` `to` `31.12.2007=` `Rs.6.63/- Per sq. mtr/per` `month` `1.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 =` `Rs.6.77 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 =` `Rs.16.50 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2010 to 31.12.2010 = Rs.` `16.83 Per sq. mtr/per month.` `1.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 = Rs.` `17.17 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 = Rs.` `17.51 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2013 to 12.09.2013 = Rs.` `17.86 Per sq. mtr/per month` `13.09.2013 to 31.12.2013 = Rs.` `53.58 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 = Rs.` `54.65 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2015 to 3.2.2015 = Rs.`

¶477

Page 85 of 273

¶478

		`55.74 Per sq. mtr/per month`
11.	`Revised lease rent` `under 2014 TAMP` `Order`	`The rates applicable with` `effect from 1.01.2014 have` `been not approved by TAMP` `hence the difference of rate` `shall be payable as per` `revised rate as and when` `approved by TAMP`
12.	`Whether any change` `in category?`	`NA`
13.	`Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order :` `Retrospective/Pros` `pective`	`As per column 11`
14.	`Date of petition:`	`03.07.2015`
15.	`Prayers`	`A.` `To admit and allow the` `petition.`
		`B.` `Unreasonable demand at`
		`such exorbitant rates`
		`without any basis as` `being` `illegal,` `unreasonable, arbitrary`
		`and violative Art 14 and`
		`19(1)(g)` `of` `the`
		`constitution of India;`
		`C.` `To issue an appropriate`
		`writ, order or direction`
		`declaring` `clauses` `6.2.2.2(e) and clause`
		`6.2.2.3(g) of the Land`
		`Policy` `2010` `being`
		`unreasonable` `arbitrary`
		`and violative of Art.14`
		`and` `19(1)(g)` `of` `Constitution of India;`
		`D.` `To quash and set aside`
		`the Land Poicy 2010 and`
		`Land Policy 2014 to the`
		`extent it grants an`
		`ambiguous and unfettered`
		`power to the respondents`
		`to base the scale of`
		`rates of any of the`
		`criteria` `specified`
		`therein` `as` `being`
		`violative of Art 14 and` `19(1)(g) of Constitution` `of India.`
		`E.` `To stay the operation and` `implementation of bills`

¶479

Page 86 of 273

¶480

		`of` `compensation` `and` `restrain the respondents`
		`from taking any action`
		`for` `recovering` `of`
		`compensation bills in`
		`any manner, whatsoever,` `pending the admission,`
		`hearing` `and` `final`
		`disposal of the present` `petition.`
		`F.` `To grant such other and` `further relief and/or` `order in the interest of` `justice in favour of the` `petitioner`
`16.`	`Status of Public` `Premises Eviction` `proceedings`	`PP Act Case no. 11 of 2015` `concluded against petitioner` `to pay to the respondent a sum` `of Rs12,25,88,129.00 on` `account of` `Rent/damages/compensation` `along with interest @ 18% p.a.`
17.	`Specific Facts:`	`Possession handed back to DPT` `pending thepetition.`
18.	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`
19.	`Issue of Renewal`	`No clause for renewal in the` `agreement and no reliefs` `sought.`

¶481

	SCA N	o.10984 OF 2015
`Sr.` `No.`		`Deta`	`ls`
1.	`Petitioner`	`PSL Limited.`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Leave and Licens` `temporary basis` `land admeasuring` `issued in favour` `vide letter dated`	`e agreement on` `WRT parcel of` `44587 sq.mts` `of` `PSL LTD.,` `26.07.2004`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`Initial allotme` `26.04.2004 for` `months` `which` `extended from tim` `16.6.2007`	`nt was from` `a period of 11` `was` `further` `e to time up to`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occu` `17.06.2007`	`pant since`

¶482

Page 87 of 273

¶483

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶484

`5.`	`Name of original` `lessee/allottee`	`PSL LTD.,` `(ON LEAVE & LICENSE` `BASIS)`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`No details of transfer provided.`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made to` `KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 2 per sq.mt./per month i.e` `Rs 89,174.00 per month`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`17.06.2007` `to` `31.12.2007=` `Rs.6.63/- Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 =` `Rs.6.77 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 =` `Rs.16.50 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2010 to 31.12.2010 = Rs.` `16.83 Per sq. mtr/per month.` `1.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 = Rs.` `17.17 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 = Rs.` `17.51 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2013 to 12.09.2013 = Rs.` `17.86 Per sq. mtr/per month` `13.09.2013 to 31.12.2013 = Rs.` `53.58 Per sq. mtr/per month` `1.01.2014 to 18.11.2014 = Rs.` `54.65 Per sq. mtr/per month`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`The rates applicable with effect` `from 1.01.2014 have been not` `approved by TAMP hence the` `difference of rate shall be` `payable as per revised rate as` `and when approved by TAMP`
12.	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`NA`
13.	`Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order :` `Retrospective/Pr` `ospective`	`As per column 11`
14.	`Date of` `petition:`	`03.07.2015`

¶485

Page 88 of 273

¶486

15.	`Prayers`	`A.` `To admit and allow the`
		`petition.`
		`B.` `Unreasonable demand at such` `exorbitant rates without`
		`any` `basis` `as` `being`
		`illegal,` `unreasonable,`
		`arbitrary and violative`
		`Art 14 and 19(1)(g) of the`
		`constitution of India;`
		`C.` `To issue an appropriate`
		`writ, order or direction`
		`declaring` `clauses`
		`6.2.2.2(e)` `and` `clause`
		`6.2.2.3(g) of the Land`
		`Policy` `2010` `being`
		`unreasonable arbitrary and`
		`violative of Art.14 and`
		`19(1)(g) of Constitution`
		`of India;`
		`D.` `To quash and set aside the`
		`Land Poicy 2010 and Land`
		`Policy 2014 to the extent`
		`it grants an ambiguous and`
		`unfettered power to the`
		`respondents to base the`
		`scale of rates of any of`
		`the criteria specified`
		`therein as being violative`
		`of Art 14 and 19(1)(g) of`
		`Constitution of India.`
		`E.` `To stay the operation and`
		`implementation of bills of`
		`compensation and restrain`
		`the` `respondents` `from`
		`taking any action for`
		`recovering of compensation`
		`bills in any manner,`
		`whatsoever, pending the`
		`admission, hearing and`
		`final disposal of the`
		`present petition.`
		`F.` `To grant such other and`
		`further` `relief` `and/or`
		`order in the interest of`
		`justice in favour of the`
		`petitioner`
`16.`	`Status of Public`	`PP Act Case no. 12 of 2015`
	`Premises`	`concluded against petitioner to`
	`Eviction`	`pay to the respondent a sum of`
	`proceedings`	`Rs12,00,51,871.00 on account of` `Rent/damages/compensation along` `with interest @ 18% p.a.`

¶487

Page 89 of 273

¶488

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶489

17.	`Specific Facts:`	`Possession handed back to DPT` `pending thepetition.`
18.	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`
19.	`Issue of Renewal`	`No clause for renewal in the` `agreement and no reliefs sought.`

¶490

SCA No. 11497 of 2015

¶491

	`Sr. No.`	`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd.` `(Formerly known as Kesar Enterprises)`
2.	`Lessee/All` `ottee` `Copy of` `Lease` `Deed/Allott` `ment Letter`	`Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring` `6878 sq.mts issued in favour of Kesar` `Enterprises Ltd. on 03.07.1978 (which was` `registered on 26.8.1986) (Page 61)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holdi` `ng`	`3.7.1978 to 2.7.2008 i.e. for a period of` `30 years.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allo` `ttee`	`Unauthorized occupant since 3.7.2008`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allo` `ttee`	`Kesar Enterprises Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/tran` `sfer`	`Scheme for arrangement under Section 391` `to 394 of the Companies Act for demerger` `approved vide order dated 12.3.2010 passed` `by the Bombay High Court. (separately` `provided)`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application` `for` `transfer` `made to` `KPT.`	`No application was made.`
`8.`	`Response by` `KPT to` `application`	`N.A.`

¶492

Page 90 of 273

¶493

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶494

	`for` `transfer.`
`9.`	`Original` `lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 2.88 per sq. mt.`
`10.`	`Revised` `lease rent` `rate under` `2011 Tamp` `Order :`	`1994-1999 = Rs.30/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 67.8/- per s.m/ annum 5%` `escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 87.6/- per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation` `2009-2011=Rs. 180.60/-per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation`
11.	`Revised` `lease rent` `under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year from` `2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`E as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014.`
`13.`	`Dues under` `2014 TAMP` `Order :` `Retrospecti` `ve/Prospect` `ive`	`Jan,` `2014` `–` `Nov,` `2014=` `Rs.` `1,86,77,278/--` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `9,24,76,367/-`
14.	`Breakup of` `amount` `due : (As` `per KPT's` `claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 9,22,341/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 22,79,644/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 22,45,598/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 69,73,952/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 98,88,431/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 11,11,53,645/-` `* transfer fees & interest for delay` `payment not included in the dues.` `* 3 times TAMP approved charged from` `03/07/2008`
15.	`Date of` `petition:`	`6.7.2015`
16.	`Prayers`	`1. To quash and set aside the` `bills of compensation.` `2. To` `direct` `respondent` `authorities to renew lease` `agreement dated 3.7.1978 at the` `rates prevalent at prevalent` `time.` `3. Quash and set aside the order` `dated 13.11.2014passed by the`

¶495

Page 91 of 273

¶496

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶497

		`TAMP` `4. To declare that the subject` `land leased to petitioner is` `covered under Category E` `instead of G1 and hence rental` `be charged accordingly.` `5. To direct respondents not to` `take coercive steps.` `6. To quash and set aside Land` `Policy of 2010 and 2014.`
17.	`Relief` `Granted`	`No interim relief`
18.	`Status of` `Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Proceedings initiated and pending before` `the Estate Officer.`
19.	`Specific` `Facts :`	• `The transfer effected by the lessee` `unto the petitioning company after` `the term of lease was over.` • `The petitioning company was not the` `lessee and is the transferee after` `the period of lease was over` `therefore derives no right in the` `demised land. Therefore cannot be` `treated as lessee for the purpose of` `the renewal of lease.`
20.	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`I. Petitioner being a transferee after` `the period of lease is over,` `therefore derives no interest in the` `property therefore, has no locus to` `maintain the petition for such` `reliefs.`
21.	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`J. Renewal was subject to conditions` `and terms being fulfilled and upon` `discretion of lessor.` `K. Prayer (B) is with respect to` `renewal of lease agreement.`

¶498

SCA No. 10730 of 2016

¶499

	`Sr. No.`	`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd.`
2.	`Lessee/All` `ottee` `Copy of`	`Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of land` `admeasuring 2524.530 sq.mts on temporary` `Leave and License Basis issued in favour`
	`Lease Deed/` `Allottme` `nt Letter`	`of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. on 19.09.2005` `(Page 31-32)`

¶500

Page 92 of 273

¶501

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶502

`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holdi` `ng`	`11 months from 1.10.2005 to 31.8.2006` `Lastly extended for 11 months from` `1.8.2007 to 30.6.2008.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allo` `ttee`	`Unauthorized occupant since 30.6.2008`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allo` `ttee`	`Kesar Enterprises Ltd.`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/tran` `sfer`	`Vide scheme for arrangement under Section` `391 to 394 of the Companies Act, for` `demerger` `of` `Distiller’s` `Trading` `Corporation Division of Kesar Enterprises` `Ltd. into Kesar Terminals Infrastructure` `Ltd. as a going concern came to be` `approved vide order dated 12.3.2010` `passed by the Bombay High Court.`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application` `for` `transfer` `made to` `KPT.`	`NA`
`8.`	`Response by` `KPT to` `application` `for` `transfer.`	`1 Letter dated 14.3.2012 by which` `payments from the petitioning company` `were refused as it was not the allottee.` `* Vide letter dated 23.3.2012 petitioning` `company had provided details of the order` `of amalgamation of companies vide a` `communication of 11.7.2010.`
`9.`	`Original` `lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 2.50 per sq.mt.`
`10.`	`Revised` `lease rent` `rate under` `Tamp Order` `2011`	`2004-2009 = Rs. 87.6/- per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 180.60/-per s.m/ annum 2%` `escalation`
11.	`Revised` `lease rent` `under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 350.16/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year from` `2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any`	`There is no change in the category.`

¶503

Page 93 of 273

¶504

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶505

	`change in` `category?`
13.	`Breakup of` `amount` `due : (As` `per KPT's` `claim)`	`2014- 2018 = Rs.1,29,20,418 /-`
14.	`Date of` `petition :`	`30.6.2016`
15.	`Prayers`	`1. To quash and set aside impugned` `notices` `dated` `3.6.2016` `and` `3/8.12.2014 issued by respondent` `no.2 and 3.` `2. To direct the respondents to renew` `the Leave and License Agreement in` `respect of subject plot admeasuring` `2534.530 sq.mts. at the rates` `prevalent at the relevant time.` `3. To hold and declare the Bills of` `Compensation raising unreasonable` `demand at exorbitant rates bad and` `illegal.` `4. To direct respondent authorities not` `to take any co-ercive steps and to` `stay the impugned notices dated` `3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014.` `5. To stay the operation and execution` `of compensation bills raised by` `respondents in respect of subject` `plot.`
`16.`	`Relief` `Granted`	`Petitioner was granted liberty to seek` `adjournment in the proceedings before` `Estate Officer.`
`17.`	`Status of` `Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Case No. 1072/25/2016 is pending before` `Estate Officer.`
18.	`Specific` `Facts :`	• `The term of live and license has` `lapsed in the year 2008, the deeds` `were without a right of renewal.` • `Transfer is made after the term of` `license therefore no interest is` `created wrt to the lands in` `question.`
		• `No right or interest is created in` `the premises on the basis of the` `live and license agreement.`

¶506

Page 94 of 273

¶507

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶508

`19.`	`Nature of`	•	`As the transfer is after the lapse`
	`Preliminary` `Objections`	•	`of term of live and license, no` `interest is transferred unto the` `transferee company.` `No right or interest is created in` `the premises on the basis of the` `live and license agreement.`
`20.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`Live` `right`	`and license agreements are without a` `for renewal`
		`Praye` `renew`	`r (C) is with respect to seeking` `al of Leave and License Agreement.`

¶509

SCA No. 10891 of 2016

¶510

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure` `Ltd.`
`2`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/` `Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/` `clauses`	`Letter of Allotment WRT parcel` `of land admeasuring 542` `sq.mts on temporary Leave` `and License Basis issued in` `favour of Kesar Enterprises` `Ltd. on 16.1.1996. (Page 32-` `33)`
`3`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`11 months from date of taking` `possession` `i.e.` `from` `30.1.1996 to 29.11.1996.` `Lastly extended for another 11` `months upon request made by` `Kesar Enterprises Ltd. from` `1.12.2007 to 31.10.2008`
`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `31.10.2008`
`5`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`Kesar Enterprises Ltd.`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`Vide scheme for arrangement` `under Section 391 to 394 of` `the Companies Act, for` `demerger` `of Distiller’s`

¶511

Page 95 of 273

¶512

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶513

		`Trading Corporation Division` `of Kesar Enterprises Ltd.` `into` `Kesar` `Terminals` `Infrastructure Ltd. as a` `going concern came to be` `approved vide order dated` `12.3.2010 passed by the` `Bombay High Court.`
`7`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`23.3.2012`
`8`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`Letter dated 14.3.2012 by which` `payments` `from` `the` `petitioning company were` `refused as it was not the` `allottee. (Page 66)` `* Vide letter dated 23.3.2012` `petitioning company had` `provided details of the` `order of amalgamation of` `companies vide a` `communication of 11.7.2010.` `(Page 68)`
`9`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 2.50 per sq.mt.`
`10`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011` `:`	`1996-1999 = Rs.30/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 67.8/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 87.6/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 180.60/-per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`
`11`	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 350.16/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every` `year from 2014.`
`12`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`There is no change in the` `category.`
`13`	`Breakup of` `amount due :` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`2014- 2018 = Rs. 27,60,673/-`
`14`	`Date of` `petition :`	`30.6.2016`
`15`	`Prayers`	`1.` `Toquash and set aside`

¶514

Page 96 of 273

¶515

		`2.` `3.` `4.` `5.`	`impugned` `notices` `dated` `3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014` `issued by respondent no.2` `and 3.` `To direct the respondents to` `renew the Leave and License` `Agreement in respect of` `subject plot admeasuring 542` `sq.mts.` `at` `the` `rates` `prevalent at the relevant` `time.` `To hold and declare the` `Bills` `of` `Compensation` `raising unreasonable demand` `at exorbitant rates bad and` `illegal.` `To` `direct` `respondent` `authorities not to take any` `co-ercive steps and to stay` `the impugned notices dated` `3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014.` `To stay the operation and` `execution of compensation` `bills raised by respondents` `in respect of subjectplot.`
`16`	`Relief Granted`	`Peti` `to s` `proc` `Offi`	`tioner was granted liberty` `eek adjournment in the` `eedings before Estate` `cer.`
`17`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Case`	`No. 1072/24/2016 is` `pending.`
`18`	`Specific Facts :`	• • •	`The term of live and license` `has lapsed in the year 2008,` `the deeds were without a` `right of renewal.` `Transfer is made after the` `term of license therefore no` `interest is created wrt to` `the lands in question.` `No right or interest is` `created in the premises on` `the basis of the live and` `license agreement.`
`19`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	•	`As the transfer is after the` `lapse of term of live and` `license, no interest is` `transferred` `unto` `the` `transferee company.`

¶516

Page 97 of 273

¶517

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶518

		• `No rig` `created` `the bas` `license`	`ht or interest is` `in the premises on` `is of the live and` `agreement.`
`20`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`Live and li` `without`	`cense agreements are` `a right for renewal`
		`Prayer (C) i` `seeking` `License`	`s with respect to` `renewal of Leave and` `Agreement.`

¶519

SCA No. 10892 of 2016

¶520

`Sr. No.`	`Details`
`1. Petitioner`	`Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd.`
`2. Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease`	`Letter of Allotment Wrt parcel of land` `admeasuring` `3617.50` `sq.mts` `on`
`Deed/Allottmet` `Letter`	`temporary Leave and License Basis` `issued in favour of Kesar Enterprises` `Ltd. on 21/22.11.2007. (Page 31-33)`
`3. Duration of` `lease/holding`	`11 months from date of taking over of` `possession. Lastly extended for 11` `months from 1.12.2007 to 31.10.2008`
`4. Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since 31.10.2008`
`5. Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`Kesar Enterprises Ltd.`
`6. Nature of` `change/` `transfer`	`Vide scheme for arrangement under` `Section 391 to 394 of the Companies` `Act, for demerger of Distiller’s` `Trading Corporation Division of Kesar` `Enterprises Ltd. into Kesar Terminals` `Infrastructure Ltd. as a going concern` `came to be approved vide order dated` `12.3.2010 passed by the Bombay High` `Court.`
`7. Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`NA`
`8. Response by KPT` `to application`	`Letter dated 14.3.2012 by which` `payments from the petitioning company`
`for transfer.`	`were refused as it was not the` `allottee.(Page 58)`

¶521

Page 98 of 273

¶522

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶523

	`* Vide letter dated 23.3.2012` `petitioning company had provided` `details of the order of amalgamation` `of companies vide a communication of` `11.7.2010.(Page 60)`
`9. Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 1.50 per sq.mt.`
`10.Revised lease` `rent rate under` `TAMP Order 2011`	`2008-2009 = Rs. 42.21/- per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation` `2009-2011= Rs. 80.40/-per s.m/ annum` `2% escalation`
11.`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 108/-` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year from` `2014.`
`12.Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`There is no change in category.`
`13.Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order :` `Retrospective/P` `rospective`	`Jan, 2014 – Nov, 2014: = Rs.` `79,168/-` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `62,76,960/-`
14.`Breakup of` `amount due :`	`2014- 2018 = Rs. 63,56,128/-`
15.`Date of` `petition :`	`30.6.2016`
16.`Prayers`	`1. To quash and set aside impugned` `notices dated 3.6.2016 and` `3/8.12.2014 issued by respondent` `no.2 and 3.` `2. To direct the respondents to` `renew the Leave and License` `Agreement in respect of subject` `plot admeasuring 3617.50 sq.mts.` `at the rates prevalent at the` `relevant time.` `3. To hold and declare the Bills of` `Compensation` `raising` `unreasonable` `demand` `at` `exorbitant` `rates` `bad` `and` `illegal.` `4. To direct respondent authorities` `not to take any co-ercive steps` `and to stay the impugned notices` `dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014` `5. To stay the operation and`

¶524

Page 99 of 273

¶525

		`execution of compensation bills` `raised by respondents in respect` `of subjectplot.`
`17.Relief Granted`	`Petit` `adjou` `Estat`	`ioner was granted liberty to seek` `rnment in the proceedings before` `e Officer.`
`18.Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Case`	`NO. 1072/26/2016 is pending.`
19.`Specific Facts` `:`	• • •	`The term of live and license has` `lapsed in the year 2008, the` `deeds were without a right of` `renewal.` `Transfer is made after the term` `of license therefore no interest` `is created wrt to the lands in` `question.` `No right or interest is created` `in the premises on the basis of` `the live and license agreement.`
`20.Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	• •	`As the transfer is after the` `lapse of term of live and` `license,` `no` `interest` `is` `transferred unto the transferee` `company.` `No right or interest is created` `in the premises on the basis of` `the live and license agreement.`
`21.Issue of` `Renewal`	`Live` `witho` `Praye` `renew` `Agree`	`and license agreements are` `ut a right for renewal` `r (C) is with respect to seeking` `al of Leave and License` `ment.`

¶526

SCA No. 10306 of 2015

¶527

`Sr.` `No.`			`Details`
`1`	`Petitioner`	`M/s. Tanker` `Association`	`Owner’s & Operator’s` `s.`
`2`	`Lessee/Allottee`	`Letter of`	`Allotment WRT parcel`
	`Copy of`	`of land`	`admeasuring 11,983`
	`Lease`	`sq.mts issu`	`ed in favour of M/s.`

¶528

Page 100 of 273

¶529

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶530

	`Deed/Allottm` `ent Letter` `and`	`Tanker Owner’s & Oper` `Associations dated 24.9.198`	`ator’s` `2.`
	`Important` `terms/clause` `s`	`No lease deed executed.` `51A)`	`(Page`
`3`	`Duration of` `lease/holdin` `g`	`24.1.1983 to 23.1.2013` `period of 30 years.`	`for a`
`4`	`Status of` `lessee/allot` `tee`	`Unauthorized` `occupant` `24.1.2013`	`since`
`5`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allot` `tee`	`NA`
`6`	`Nature of` `change/trans` `fer`	`NA`
`7`	`Date of` `Application` `for transfer` `made to KPT.`	`NA`
`8`	`Response by` `KPT to` `application` `for` `transfer.`	`N.A.`
`9`	`Original` `lease rent` `rate`	`Rs. 2.70 per sq.mt./per ann`	`um`
`10`	`Revised lease` `rent` `rate` `under` `2011` `Tamp Order:`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/-` `sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 36/- per` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009=Rs. 46.2/- per` `annum 2% escalation` `2009-2011=Rs. 94.80/-per` `annum 2% escalation`	`per` `s.m/` `s.m/` `s.m/`
`11`	`Revised` `lease rent` `rate under` `2014 TAMP` `Order`	`2014: Rs. 403.2` `* Rate escalation @ 2%` `year from 2014.`	`every`

¶531

Page 101 of 273

¶532

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶533

`12`	`Whether` `there is` `change in` `category?`	`F2 as per order of 2011` `F2 as per order of 2014`
`13`	`Dues under` `2014 TAMP` `Order:` `Retrospectiv` `e/Prospectiv` `e`	`Jan, 2014 – Nov, 2014: = Rs.` `23,75,123/-` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `2,23,23,242/-`
`14`	`Breakup of` `amount due` `from` `allottee:` `(As per` `KPT's claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 7,35,875/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 24,84,195/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 19,38,849/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 21,00,619/-` `2011-2013 = Rs. 21,93,248/-` `2014- 2018 = Rs. 2,46,98,365/-` `*interest for delay payment not` `included in the dues.`
`15`	`Date of` `petition:`	`23.6.2015`
`16`	`Prayers`	`1. To direct the respondent to` `forthwith renew the lease` `of land admeasuring 11,983` `sq.mts in pursuance to the` `application dated 9.5.2011` `at the rate prevalent at` `the relevant time.` `2. To set aside the notice` `dated` `18.5.2015` `and` `26.5.2015` `issued` `by` `respondent no.2` `3. To declare that the bills` `of compensation, raising` `unreasonable demand at such` `exorbitant` `rates` `are` `without any basis.` `4. To declare differential` `bills raising unreasonable` `demand at such exorbitant` `rates are without any` `basis.` `5. To direct respondent no.2` `to refund the amount paid` `by the petitioner towards` `compensation bill.` `6. To declare that the subject`

¶534

Page 102 of 273

¶535

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶536

		`land` `leased` `to` `the` `petitioner is covered under` `category` `D` `1` `and` `respondents be directed to` `charge` `lease` `rental` `accordingly.` `7. To set aside Land Policy` `2014, to the extent that it` `grants an ambiguous and` `unfettered power to the` `respondents to base the` `scale of rates on any of` `the` `criteria` `specified` `therein.`
`17`	`Relief` `Granted`	`Vide order 2.7.2015, it was` `directed that the respondent` `shall not disturb the possession` `of the petitioner of the plot in` `question on a condition that the` `petitioner shall pay 50% of the` `amount demanded under notice` `dated 18.5.2015.`
`18`	`Status of` `Public` `Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`No proceedings initiated.`
`19`	`Specific` `Facts:`	`L. In absence of execution of` `deed of lease, no rights` `are` `vested` `into` `the` `petitioner, much less a` `right of renewal of lease.` `M. Second` `Appeal` `pending` `before High Court of Guj.` `Wherein interim relief is` `granted against payment of` `revised rates(pg. 61)`
`20`	`Nature of` `preliminary` `objections`	`In absence of execution of deed` `of lease, no rights are vested` `into the petitioner, much less a` `right of renewal of lease. In` `absence of a legal right the` `writ is not maintainable.`
`21`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`22.` `No clause of renewal` `of lease, more as the deed` `of lease has not been` `executed.` `23.` `Para 10 (A) of the` `prayer clause is with` `respect to renewal of lease` `agreement.`

¶537

Page 103 of 273

¶538

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶539

SCA No. 2905 of 2015

¶540

`Sr.` `No.`		`Details`
`1.`	`Petitioner`	`Avean International Pvt Ltd.`
`2.`	`Lessee/Allottee` `Copy of Lease` `Deed/Allottment` `Letter and` `Important` `terms/clauses`	`Lease deed executed WRT parcel of` `land admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts` `issued in favour of partners of` `Talakshi Lalji & Company on` `16.9.1988. (Page 60A)` `Supplementary` `agreement` `dated` `10.12.1999` `with` `Avean` `International.(Page 80)`
`3.`	`Duration of` `lease/holding`	`24.6.1978 to 23.6.2008 with` `respect to land admeasuring 4,646` `for a period of 30 years.`
`4.`	`Status of` `lessee/allottee`	`Unauthorized occupant since` `24.6.2008.`
`5.`	`Name of` `original` `lessee/allottee`	`Talakshi Lalji & Company`
`6.`	`Nature of` `change/transfer`	`The original lessee i.e. Talakshi` `Lalji and Company had executed` `sale cum transfer deed on` `24.4.1997 in favour of M/s. Avean` `International Pvt. Ltd. for a` `period of 30 years commencing from` `24.6.1978. (Page 75A)`
`7.`	`Date of` `Application for` `transfer made` `to KPT.`	`No details on record`
`8.`	`Response by KPT` `to application` `for transfer.`	`No details on record.`
`9.`	`Original lease` `rent rate`	`Rs. 1.80 per sq.mt./per annum`
`10.`	`Revised lease` `rent rate under` `:`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 16/- per sm/annum` `1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/` `annum 5% escalation` `2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`

¶541

Page 104 of 273

¶542

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶543

		`2009-2011= Rs. 110.40/-per s.m/` `annum 2% escalation`
11.	`Revised lease` `rent under 2014` `TAMP Order`	`2014: Rs. 905.17` `* Rate escalation @ 2% every year` `from 2014.`
`12.`	`Whether any` `change in` `category?`	`A as per order of 2011` `G1 as per order of 2014`
`13.`	`Dues under 2014` `TAMP Order :` `Retrospective/P` `rospective`	`Jan, 2014 – Nov, 2014: = Rs.` `0.00` `Nov, 2014 – Dec, 2018: = Rs.` `0.00/-`
14.	`Breakup of` `amount due :` `(As per KPT's` `claim)`	`1994-1999 = Rs. 3,18,761/-` `1999-2004 = Rs. 9,37,332/-` `2004-2009 = Rs. 9,22,233/-` `2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00/-`
		`2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/-`
		`2014- 2018 = Rs. 0.00/-`
15.	`Date of` `petition :`	`11.2.2015`
16.	`Prayers`	`A. To direct respondents to` `forthwith renew the lease` `agreement dated 16.9.1988 for` `land admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts` `at the rates prevalent at the` `relevant time.` `B. To set aside notice dated` `12.1.2015` `issued` `by` `respondent no.2.` `C. To declare the bills of` `compensation` `raising` `unreasonable demand at such` `exorbitant rates without any` `basis.` `D. To declare the differential` `bills` `being` `raising` `unreasonable demand at such` `exorbitant rates without any` `basis.` `E. To` `declare` `that` `land` `admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts. is` `leased to the petitioner and` `is covered under category D 2` `and the respondents be` `directed to charge lease` `rental accordingly and also` `refund the amount which has` `been charged.`

¶544

Page 105 of 273

¶545

		`F. To set aside Land Policy 2010` `and 2014.`
`17.`	`Relief Granted`	`Order` `dated` `26.2.2015` `the` `respondent was directed not to` `take any coercive action.`
`18.`	`Status of` `Public Premises` `Eviction` `proceedings`	`Not started due to proceedings` `pending since 2015 before the High` `court of Gujarat.`
19.	`Specific` `Facts :`	`2. Undertaking` `given` `on` `22.10.2007 to pay revised` `ground rent and upfront fees` `along with escalation every` `year as may be fixed by the` `competent authority within 30` `days of renewal. (pg.128 and` `pg 135).` `3. DPT has taken a uniform` `policy stand to resort to` `public auction for allotment` `ofproperty.`
`20.`	`Nature of` `Preliminary` `Objections`	`NA`
`21.`	`Issue of` `Renewal`	`No renewal clause in the lease` `deed.` `Para 9 (A) of the prayer clause is` `with respect to renewal of lease` `agreement.`

¶546

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS :-

¶547

7.Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi for the
respondent KPT, at the outset, had challenged
the very locus standi of some of the petitioners
i.e. M/s.IMC Ltd., M/s. JRE Tank Terminals
Private Limited, M/s. Kesar Terminals &
Infrastructure Ltd., M/s.Mother Dairy Fruit &
Vegetable Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.INEOS Styrolution

¶548

Page 106 of 273

¶549

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶550

India Ltd.

¶551

7.1According to Mr.Joshi, in case of the

¶552

petitioner M/s.IMC Limited, the transfer was
made in breach of conditions of allotment
letter/lease deed executed in favour of the

¶553

original allottee USTTL. Such transfer being
void, no legal right had ensued on the
transferee Company i.e. M/s. IMC Limited.
Similarly, in case of M/s.JRE Tank Terminals a
partnership firm to whom plot was allotted was
sought to be converted into a Limited Company

¶554

without the permission of the KPT. In case of
M/s.Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure Ltd.,

¶555

transfer was made after the expiry of the period
of lease, and therefore, such petitioner had no

¶556

locus standi to maintain the petition. In case
of M/s.Mother Dairy Fruits & Vegetable Pvt.
Ltd., also the transfer was in breach of
conditions of lease and without prior permission
of KPT, and therefore, the transfer was void. No
interest could be said to have been transferred

¶557

to enforce the terms of lease. In case of
M/s.INEOS Styrolution India Ltd., the change in

¶558

Page 107 of 273

¶559

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶560

the name of the Company was consequence to the
change in the shareholdings of the Company under
the share purchase agreement and was a facade to
cover the transfer in contravention of the
conditions of deed. The transferee Company
M/s.INEOS Styrolution India Limited is not the
lessee under the lease deed, and therefore, not
entitled to the enforcement of rights on the
basis of lease created in favour of the original
allottee.

¶561

7.2The basic postulate of the argument of
Mr.Joshi is that the petitioners in the afore-
stated petitions are the transferees and in
unauthorised occupation of their respective
plots in question, and therefore, they have no
locus standi to file and maintain the petitions
claiming relief against the KPT. Elaborating
his submissions, Mr.Joshi submitted that there
are three categories of the petitioners, who are
the transferees and occupying the plots in

¶562

question unauthorizedly. Firstly, the

¶563

petitioners, who claim their rights under a
valid subsisting lease with original allottees,

¶564

Page 108 of 273

¶565

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶566

but have no locus standi as the transfer itself
was impermissible without prior permission of
the Port Trust. They are unauthorised occupants
liable for penal rates of lease rent for the

¶567

period of their occupation and also liable for
eviction. In this regard he has relied upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in case of

¶568

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone

¶569

Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., reported in

¶570

(2016) 4 SCC 469. According to him such
unauthorised occupants cannot challenge the
revision of Scales of Rates (SoR) and/or the
legality or validity of the land policy or seek
any relief in respect thereof. The second
category of petitioners are those who claim to

¶571

be the transferees of lease hold rights, but the

¶572

period of lease had expired before the transfer,

¶573

and therefore, they also cannot maintain the
petition, since the transfer of a non-existing

¶574

right is void as held by the Supreme Court in
case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant

¶575

Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 11

¶576

SCC 406. According to him, the third category

¶577

of petitioners are those who are transferees

¶578

Page 109 of 273

¶579

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶580

from the original allottees, who were holding
the land under the letter of allotment. Such
petitioners also would not have locus standi to
maintain the petition, as the rights under

¶581

letter of allotment could not have been
transferred without the execution of the lease
deed as specifically stipulated in the letter of
allotment itself. In absence of a lease deed,
no relationship of lessor and lessee had come
into being at all, and therefore, such entities
cannot maintain the petition against the KPT.

¶582

In this regard, he has relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in case ofOrissa
IndustrialInfrastructureDevelopment
Corporation Vs. Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited &

¶583

Ors., reported in (2017) 5 SCC 86.

¶584

7.3Mr.Joshi further submitted that any
transfer itself was impermissible without the
prior permission of the KPT and in any case, the
petitioners had not paid the prescribed transfer

¶585

fees. The contention that an agreement under
the provisions of the Companies Act does not
amount to transfer and that the Port Trust was

¶586

Page 110 of 273

¶587

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶588

not justified in levying the transfer charges is
contrary to the legal position settled by the
Supreme Court in various judgements and such
contention should not be accepted by the Court.
Placing reliance upon various decisions of the
Supreme Court in case of General Radio and
Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M. A. Khader
(Dead) by LRs., (1986) 2 SCC 656, in case of
Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha &
Ors., reported (2004) 7 SCC 1, and in case of U.

¶589

P. State Industrial Dev. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Monsanto
Manufacturers (P) Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR
2015 SCW 1205, he submitted that such transfer

¶590

is voluntary and the company is not entitled to
seek lifting of corporate veil to contend that
two entities are one and the same. Placing
reliance on the decision of the Delhi High
Court, Mr.Joshi submitted that even conversion
of partnership firm to a joint stock company
under the provisions of Companies Act 1956
amounts to transfer. Since transfer could be
affected only with the prior approval of KPT,

¶591

the contention of the petitioners that the
transfer fees ought to be computed as on the

¶592

Page 111 of 273

¶593

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶594

date of transfer was misconceived. He further
submitted that in case where no lease deed was
executed, the original allottee was not entitled
to transfer its interest at all and such
transfer cannot be recognized. Without
prejudice to the contention that the transfers
were unauthorised, he further submitted that the
transferees being unauthorised occupants were
liable for the payment of three times the lease
rent for the period of their occupation and also
for eviction. Mr.Joshi has also urged that some
of the petitions are also barred by delay,
laches and acquiescence as the orders passed by
the TAMP in the year 2011 and 2014 have been
sought to be challenged in the year 2017.

¶595

8.In response to the said preliminary
objections raised by Mr.Joshi, the learned
Advocates appearing for the respective

¶596

petitioners have submitted as under:-

¶597

8.1Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Soparkar
appearing with Mr.Dhaval Shah for the

¶598

petitioners in Special Civil Application
Nos.2535 of 2017, and 2536 of 2017, filed by IMC

¶599

Page 112 of 273

¶600

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶601

Limited, has vehemently submitted that the
original allottee - United Storage Tanks
Terminal Limited, was a wholly owned subsidiary
of IMC and it was amalgamated into IMC by a

¶602

scheme of amalgamation which was approved by
Calcutta High Court by its order dated 7.7.2010.
Consequently all the assets and liabilities of
USTTL were transferred to IMC Limited with
effect from the date of transfer i.e. 1.4.2009

¶603

by virtue of the scheme sanctioned under the
Act. Hence, the petitioner IMC is aggrieved by

¶604

the invoice issued by the KPT in the name of
USTTL, as IMC would be liable to pay the alleged
outstanding dues of KPT. Mr.Soparkar has placed
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in

¶605

case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar

¶606

and Ors., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 for the

¶607

purpose of showing that the petitioner IMC
would be the "person aggrieved" within the
parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the
said judgement. Even in cases where no lease

¶608

deed is executed, runs the submission of
Mr.Soparkar, the petitioner IMC would still be
liable to pay the amount of invoices issued by

¶609

Page 113 of 273

¶610

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶611

the KPT, by virtue of the amalgamation of USTTL
into IMC. Distinguishing the decisions relied
upon by Mr. Mihir Joshi for the KPT, Mr.Soparkar
has submitted that on an amalgamation, the
properties of the erstwhile company would vest
in the resultant company. If the KPT had taken
any action against IMC for its alleged
unauthorized occupancy over the land in
question, such action would have been defended

¶612

by IMC only, however, the KPT had merely ignored
the transfer. He further submitted that, in any
case, the issue of eviction of IMC on the ground
of non-payment of the rent for an illegal
occupation of the land in question, is not the
issue to be decided in the present petitions.

¶613

In any event, though the KPT was duly informed
about the transfer in the year 2010, the KPT had
not taken any action or filed any proceedings

¶614

against the IMC. The KPT has not taken any

¶615

decision as to whether the land should be re-
auctioned or not in view of the Clause 16(3)(i)
of the land policy guidelines for Major Ports
issued in 2014.

¶616

Page 114 of 273

¶617

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶618

8.2In case of the petitioner JRE Tank

¶619

Terminals Pvt. Ltd (SCA No.2537 of 2017)

¶620

Mr.Soparkar submitted that the JRE Tank was
incorporated on November 16, 2004 under Part-IX

¶621

of the Companies Act and was earlier known as
M/s.JR Enterprises, a partnership firm, which

¶622

was registered as a company after complying with

¶623

all the requirements under Part-IX of the
Companies Act. Pressing into service the

¶624

provisions contained in Section 575 of the
Companies Act, he submitted that on the

¶625

registration of the company under Part-IX of the

¶626

said Act, the erstwhile partnership firm would

¶627

step into the shoes of a company and all assets

¶628

and liabilities of the erstwhile firm would vest

¶629

in the newly incorporated company. Such vesting
being a statutory act, it could not be termed as

¶630

a transfer. In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh

¶631

High Court in case of Vali Pattabhirama Rao &

¶632

Anr. Vs. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory

¶633

Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 AP 176,

¶634

which was considered and affirmed by the Supreme

¶635

Court in Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and

¶636

Page 115 of 273

¶637

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶638

Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Ors., reported in

¶639

(2006) 7 SCC 756.

¶640

8.3So far as Special Civil Application
No.13371 of 2013 and Special Civil Application
No.8538 of 2016 filed by the Mother Dairy Fruits

¶641

and Vegetable are concerned, learned Sr.
Advocate Mr.Soparkar appearing with Mr.Amar

¶642

Bhatt for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent KPT had originally allotted the land
admeasuring 27458 sq. mtrs., to NDDB on 30
years’ lease basis in the year 1989, however,
the lease deed was executed on 28.6.2001
effective from 29.5.1989. Due to restructuring
of NDDB, all the assets related to edible oil
including the brand “Dhara” and other related
activities such as storage tank farm were
transferred to Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods
Company Limited (for short “Dhara”) in April
2001 by paying a six-time lease rent and the
name of "Dhara" was entered in the records of
KPT. He further submitted that in August 2004,
"Dhara" got amalgamated with the petitioner

¶643

through a Court order passed by the High Court

¶644

Page 116 of 273

¶645

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶646

of Delhi on 13.8.2008. Hence, all the assets of
"Dhara" stood vested in the petitioner Company
from the date of sanctioning of the Scheme.
Thus, "Dhara" is the only existing entity
entitled to file the petition.

¶647

8.4Mr.Soparkar further submitted that the
petitioner had addressed several letters since
2008 till 2015 informing the respondent KPT
about the said amalgamation and requesting to
change the name from "Dhara" to that of the
petitioner, however, the respondent on 9.11.2015
after filing of SCA No.13371 of 2013 for the
first time replied to the petitioner that the
application for change is under consideration.
Under the circumstance, it does not lie in the
mouth of KPT that the petitioner has no locus to
file the petitions.

¶648

8.5As regards the preliminary objections
raised by the respondent KPT in SCA Nos.11497 of
2015, 10730 of 2016, 10891 of 2016 and 10892 of
2016 filed by Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure
Limited, the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.B.B. Naik
appearing with Mr.Premal Rachh has submitted

¶649

Page 117 of 273

¶650

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶651

that in the year 1979, Distiller Trading

¶652

Corporation Ltd., was amalgamated with Kesar
Sugar Work Ltd., by virtue of the order passed
by the Bombay High Court on 13.6.1979 and

¶653

thereafter the name of the Company i.e. Kesar
Sugar Work Ltd., was changed to Kesar
EnterprisesLtd.,bycertificateof
incorporation on change of name dated
29.9.1984. The Kesar Enterprises Limited

¶654

thereafter got engaged in the business of bulk
liquid storage terminals at the Port of Kandla

¶655

dealing in the storage of petroleum and other
chemicals on behalf of the public and private

¶656

sector units and also of traders. He further
submitted that by a scheme of arrangement under
Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956
for demerger of the storage undertaking known as

¶657

“Distillers Trading Corporation (DTC), a
division of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (KEL) as

¶658

going concern into Kesar Terminals &
Infrastructure Ltd (KTIL), the resulting
company” came to be proposed before the High

¶659

Court of Bombay, which scheme was sanctioned by
order dated 12.3.2010. The petitioner company

¶660

Page 118 of 273

¶661

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶662

thereafter vide communication dated 11.7.2010
had intimated the respondent KPT to take note of
the order passed by the High Court of Bombay and
give effect to the same by recognizing and
amending the name of the petitioner company
instead of KEL. The respondent KPT in response
thereto had asked the petitioner to furnish
certain documents vide the letter dated
13.8.2010, which were furnished by the
petitioner vide reply dated 29.8.2010.
Thereafter the petitioner had sent reminders to

¶663

the respondent KPT but there was no reply. In
the meantime, the petitioner had continued to
pay the lease rentals as per the demand notices
and compensation bills, however, the respondent
KPT had issued receipts in favour of KEL only.
Under the circumstance, the question of locus at
the instance of the respondent was mala fide and
an after-thought.

¶664

8.6Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Rajendra Golani

¶665

for the petitioner INEOS Styrolution India
Limited of the SCA No.10611 of 2016 submitted
that the possession of Plot No.8 was handed over

¶666

Page 119 of 273

¶667

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶668

to the petitioner company on 6.1.1990 and at the

¶669

relevant time the name of the petitioner
company was ABS Plastics Limited, which was
incorporated on 7.12.1973. Thereafter on

¶670

6.8.1992 the name of the company was changed
from ABS Plastics Limited to ABS Industries
Limited. The Registrar of Companies had issued

¶671

fresh certificate of incorporation to the
petitioner company accordingly. On 15.2.1997

¶672

when the name of the petitioner company was ABS
Industries Limited, a lease agreement was

¶673

entered into with the respondent KPT for a
period of 30 years starting from 6.1.1990 till
5.1.2020. In the meantime, the name of the

¶674

company was changed to Bayer ABS Limited on
1.7.1997 and again changed to Lanxess ABS
Limited on 29.4.2005 after passing necessary

¶675

resolution as required under the Companies Act
and after obtaining permission from the Central

¶676

Government. The Registrar of Companies also had
issued fresh certificate. Hence, since 2005 the
respondentTrustwasaddressingall

¶677

communications in the name of Lanxess ABS

¶678

Limited.

¶679

Page 120 of 273

¶680

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶681

8.7 Mr.Rajendra Golani also submitted that the

¶682

name of the petitioner company was changed

¶683

thrice in the year 2008, 2012 and 2016 after
undergoing necessary formalities under the
Companies Act and the petitioner company is
paying lease rent to the respondent Trust which

¶684

was being accepted without any demur or
objection. According to him, even the amount of

¶685

Rs.2,50,00,000/- paid by the petitioner under

¶686

the order of this Court was adjusted against the
outstanding amount of Lanxess ABS Limited, which

¶687

is reflected in the notice dated 3.12.2016. Only
the nomenclature of the company was changed, for
which the permission of the respondent KPT was

¶688

not required to be taken. Hence, change of name
alone cannot be presumed to be a transfer and
the petitioner company cannot be said to be an
unauthorised occupant as sought to be submitted
by the learned Advocate for the respondent KPT.

¶689

FINDINGS ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-

¶690

9. So far as the preliminary objection raised

¶691

by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi for

¶692

the respondent KPT as regards the locus standi

¶693

Page 121 of 273

¶694

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶695

of the petitioners M/s.IMC Limited, M/s.JRE Tank
Terminals, M/s.Kesar Terminals, M/s.Mother Dairy
and M/s.INEOS Styrolution India Ltd., is
concerned, it would be apt to mention that the
Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai
Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors.,
(supra) after elaborately discussing the English

¶696

decisions on "who could be said to be an
aggrievedpersontoinvokethewrit
jurisdiction" in the context of Indian
decisions, has observed that the scope and
meaning of Article 226 depends on diverse,
variable factors such as the content and intent

¶697

of the statute of which contravention is
alleged, the specific circumstances of the case,
the nature and extent of the petitioner's
interest, and the nature and extent of the
prejudice or injury suffered by him. It has been
further observed in paragraph 34 as under:-

¶698

 "34. This Court has laid down in a number of
decisions that in order to have the locus
standi to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant
should ordinarily be one who has a personal
or individual right in the subject-matter of
the application, though in the case of some
of the writs like habeas corpus or quo
warranto this rule is relaxed or modified.

¶699

Page 122 of 273

¶700

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶701

In other words, as a general rule,
infringement of some legal right or
prejudice to some legal interest inhering in
the petitioner is necessary to give him a
locus standi in the matter."

¶702

10.The afore-stated position is also reiterated
by the Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors., reported in 2013(4) SCC 465 in which it
has been observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 as

¶703

under:-

¶704

 “9.It is a settled legal proposition that
a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in
any proceeding, unless he satisfies the
Authority/Court, that he falls within the
category of aggrieved persons. Only a
person who has suffered, or suffers from
legalinjurycanchallengethe
act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable either for the
purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal
right, or when there is a complaint by the
appellant that there has been a breach of
statutory duty on the part of the
Authorities. Therefore, there must be a
judicially enforceable right available for
enforcement, on the basis of which writ
jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can
of course, enforce the performance of a
statutory duty by a public body, using its
writ jurisdiction at the behest of a
person, provided that such person satisfies
the Court that he has a legal right to
insist on such performance. The existence
of such right is a condition precedent for
invoking the writ jurisdiction of the
courts. It is implicit in the exercise of
such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the

¶705

Page 123 of 273

¶706

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶707

relief prayed for must be one to enforce a
legal right. In fact, the existence of such
right, is the foundation of the exercise of
the said jurisdiction by the Court. The
legal right that can be enforced must
ordinarily be the right of the appellant
himself, who complains of infraction of
such right and approaches the Court for
relief as regards the same.

¶708

 10.A “legal right”, means an entitlement
arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be
defined as an advantage, or a benefit
conferred upon a person by the rule of law.
The expression, “person aggrieved” does not
include a person who suffers from a
psychological or an imaginary injury; a
personaggrievedmusttherefore,
necessarily be one, whose right or interest
hasbeenadverselyaffectedor
jeopardized.”

¶709

11.From the afore-stated legal position, it is
clear that there must be a judicially
enforceable right available to the petitioner
for the enforcement, on the basis of which writ
jurisdiction is resorted to. The relief prayed
must be one to enforce a legal right. Such legal
right must be existing in favour of the
petitioner, which has been adversely affected or
jeopardized, before invoking the extraordinary
writ jurisdiction as an "aggrieved person".

¶710

Hence, let us examine as to whether the
petitioners against whom the preliminary

¶711

Page 124 of 273

¶712

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶713

objections as regards the locus standi have been
raised, have any legally enforceable right,
which has been adversely affected, so as to
bring them within the category of "aggrieved
person" entitled to invoke extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

¶714

12.The bone of contention raised by Mr.Joshi
for the respondent KPT against M/s.IMC Limited,
M/s.Kesar Terminals, and M/s.Mother Dairy is
that the amalgamation under the Companies Act

¶715

though with the sanction of the Court, would be

¶716

a voluntary transfer and the transferee
Companies who are the petitioners herein are not
entitled to seek lifting the corporate veil to
contend that two entities are one and the same.
According to him, it being a "transfer" in the
eye of law, and not permissible under the letter
of allotment or lease deed executed in favour of

¶717

the original allottee, the said petitioners –
the transferees were the illegal and
unauthorized occupants of their respective plots
in question and they could not be said to have

¶718

acquired any legal right on the plots in

¶719

Page 125 of 273

¶720

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶721

question. The Court finds substance in the said
submission of Mr.Joshi in view of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in case
of Singer India Limited Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha

¶722

and Ors. (supra). In the said case an American
Company, who was a lessee, under the direction

¶723

issued to reduce its share capital to 40% in
order to carry on business in India in view of
Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation

¶724

Act, had filed a company petition under Section
391 and Section 394 of the Companies Act for

¶725

amalgamation with the Indian Company. The said
scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned. In the
proceedings filed by the landlord against the
amalgamated company on the ground inter alia

¶726

that the American Company without obtaining any
written consent from the landlord had parted

¶727

with the possession of the premises in dispute
in favour of the Indian Company, and therefore,

¶728

the landlord was entitled to recover possession
under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control

¶729

Act, the Supreme Court after considering the
provisions for reconstruction and amalgamation
of Companies under Section 394 of the Companies

¶730

Page 126 of 273

¶731

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶732

Act, held in paragraphs 8 and 11 as under:-

¶733

" 8. In Saraswati Industrial Undertaking vs. CIT Haryana AIR 1991 SC 70 (para 6), it has been held that there can be no doubt that when two companies amalgamate and merge into one, the Transferor Company loses its identity as it ceases to have its business. However, their respective rights or liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation, but the corporate identity of the Transferor Company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the original lessee, namely, the American Company ceased to exist with effect from the Appointed Day i.e. 1.1.1982 and thereafter the Indian Company came in possession and is in occupation of the premises in dispute.

¶734

9 and 10.....

¶735

 11. These cases clearly hold that even if
there is an order of a Court sanctioning the
scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391
and 394 of the Companies Act whereunder the
leases, rights of tenancy or occupancy of
the Transferor Company get vested in and
become the property of the Transferee
Company, it would make no difference in so
far as the applicability of Section 14(1)(b)
is concerned, as the Act does not make any
exception in favour of a lessee who may have
adopted such a course of action in order to
secure compliance of law."

¶736

13.Similar view was also taken by the Supreme
Court in case ofM/s.General Radio and

¶737

Appliances Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. M. A. Khader
(dead) by LRs. (supra), wherein it was urged on

¶738

behalf of the original tenant that the

¶739

Page 127 of 273

¶740

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶741

amalgamation of M/s. General Radio and
Appliances Company Limited with M/s.National
Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Limited was an
involuntary act, which had been brought into
being on the basis of the order passed by the
High Court under Section 391 and Section 394 of
the Companies Act and that both the companies
had merely blended with each other and
consequently there was no sub-letting by the

¶742

original lessee company. The Supreme Court
negativing the said submission held inter alia

¶743

that the order of amalgamation was made by the
High Court on the basis of the petition filed by
the transferor company, and therefore, it could
not be said that it was an involuntary transfer
affected by the order of the Court. It was also
held that the transferor company i.e. the

¶744

original lessee was no longer in existence in
the eye of law, and it had effaced itself for
all practical purposes. The Court further took
the view that under the relevant Act, there was
no express provision that in case of any

¶745

involuntary transfer or transfer of tenancy
right by virtue of scheme of amalgamation

¶746

Page 128 of 273

¶747

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶748

sanctioned by the High Court by its order under
Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies
Act, such a transfer will not come into the
purview of the relevant provisions of the Rent
Act.

¶749

14. In view of the above, the submission of the
learned Advocates for the concerned petitioners

¶750

that the petitioner companies being the
transferee companies having come into possession

¶751

of the plots in question by view of an
involuntary act i.e. by virtue of the orders of

¶752

amalgamation passed by the respective High
Courts, under Section 391 and Section 394 of the
Companies Act, were the legal occupants of their
respective plots in question appears to be
absolutelyfallacious.Whenthelease

¶753

deeds/letters of allotment executed in favour of

¶754

the original allottees, and the land policies

¶755

prevailing at the relevant time specifically
prohibited any kind of transfer, the original
allottees could not have transferred any right

¶756

under the said deeds without the permission of

¶757

the KPT. As held by the Supreme Court in the
afore-stated cases, on the amalgamation by

¶758

Page 129 of 273

¶759

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶760

virtue of the amalgamation order, the
amalgamated company ceases to exist in the eye
of law, and it effaces itself for all practical
purposes. Such transactions of amalgamation are
voluntary transactions and could not be said to
be involuntary transactions even though they
come in to effect by virtue of orders of the
Court.

¶761

15.In case of the petitioner M/s.JRE Tank
Terminals also, Mr.Soparkar had sought to submit
that the earlier partnership firm known as
M/s.JR enterprises having been registered as the
company under Part-IX of the Companies Act, the
erstwhile partnership firm had stepped into the

¶762

shoes of the company and the assets and

¶763

liabilities of the erstwhile firm had vested in
the newly incorporated company by virtue of

¶764

Section 575 of the Companies Act. According to
him, such vesting being statutory could not be

¶765

termed as "transfer". In this regard,
Mr.Soparkar has relied upon the judgement of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Vali

¶766

Pattabhirama Rao (supra). In the opinion of the
Court, even if it is accepted that the original

¶767

Page 130 of 273

¶768

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶769

partnership firm was converted into a private
limited company i.e. the petitioner company
under Part-IX of the Companies Act and that all
properties of partnership firm had vested in the
petitioner company under Section 575 of the said
Act and that no conveyance deed was required to

¶770

be executed separately, then also such
transaction could not be said to be an
involuntary transfer. The original allottee

¶771

M/s.JR Enterprises, which was a partnership firm
having ceased to exist, and the new company i.e.
petitioner having come into existence by virtue
of a voluntary act, it would be tantamount to a
transfer, applying the same analogy as in case
of amalgamation of two companies under the
Scheme of arrangement and reconstruction under
Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies
Act. When such transfer was voluntary and in
breach of the conditions of allotment letter, no
legal right in respect of the lease could be
said to have been created in favour of the
petitioner M/s.JRE Tank Terminals so far as the
plot in question is concerned.

¶772

16.Similarly, in case of M/s.INEOS, the change

¶773

Page 131 of 273

¶774

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶775

in the name of the company from time to time was
the consequence to the change of shareholding of
the company under the share purchase agreement
and was a transfer in contravention of the
conditions of lease deed. The transferee company
i.e. M/s.INEOS could not be said to be the
lessee or in authorized occupation of the plot
in question, entitled to enforce any right
against the respondent KPT.

¶776

17.In the opinion of the Court the petitioners,
who are the transferee companies cannot claim

¶777

any legal right to be in occupation, relying
upon the lease deeds/letters of allotment
executed in favour of the original allottees,
which deeds in clear terms prohibited any kind
of transfers by the original allottee. Even the
land policies issued by the Government from time

¶778

to time under Section 111 of the said Act,
specifically prohibited the transfer of lease

¶779

without the permission of KPT. It is pertinent
to note that in most of the cases the original
period of lease had already expired when the
petitions were filed. When the original allottee
after the expiry of lease period could not be

¶780

Page 132 of 273

¶781

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶782

said to be in authorized occupation, the
transferee who is in possession of the plot by
virtue of voluntary transfer made by the
original allottee could not be said to be in
authorized possession.

¶783

18.Now so far as the petitioner M/s.IMC is

¶784

concerned, it is in possession of three plots

¶785

out of which two were originally allotted to the
USTTL and one plot was allotted to M/s.Indian

¶786

Mollasis Company itself. Out of these three
plots KPT had issued LOA in favour of USTTL in

¶787

respect of one plot (subject matter of SCA
No.2535 of 2017) for a period of 30 years from
1995 to 2025. In respect of other two plots

¶788

lease deeds were executed for thirty years from
1986 to 2016 (SCA 2536 of 2017) and from 1978 to
2008 (SCA No.2538 of 2017). In case of JRE Tank

¶789

(SCA No.2537 of 2017), the lease deed was
executed in favour of M/s. JR Enterprise, a

¶790

partnership firm, for a period of 30 years from
1986 to 2016. In case of Kesar Terminals (SCA
Nos.10730 of 2016, 11497 of 2015, 10891 of 2016,

¶791

and 10892 of 2016), out of four parcels of
lands, KPT had issued LOA on temporary leave and

¶792

Page 133 of 273

¶793

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶794

licence basis in respect of three parcels of
land in favour of original allottee Kesar
Enterprises Limited, the term of which has
already expired in 2006; and one lease deed was

¶795

executed in favour of said original allottee
Kesar Enterprises for a period of 30 years from

¶796

1978 to 2008. The Scheme for arrangement under

¶797

Section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act for
demerger was approved by the Bombay High Court
on 12.3.2010 i.e. after the expiry of the term
of lease/LOA. In case of the petitioner M/s.

¶798

Mother Dairy (SCA No.8538 of 2016 and No.13371
of 2013) the lease deeds were executed in favour
of original allottee NDDB for a period of 30
years from 1989 to 2019, however, during the
intervening period the entities were changed,
and lastly a scheme of amalgamation proposed by

¶799

"Dhara" and M/s.Mother Dairy was sanctioned by
the Delhi High Court as per the order dated
13.8.2008. In case of INEOS (SCA No.10611 of
2016), lease deed was executed in favour of
original allottee ABS Industries Limited for a

¶800

period of 30 years from 1990 to 2020, however,
in between the name of the said company and the

¶801

Page 134 of 273

¶802

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶803

share holdings were changed from time to time,
and ultimately the petitioner M/s.INEOS is in
possession of the subject plot.

¶804

19.As discussed earlier, the lease deeds

¶805

and LOA executed in favour of the original
allottees, as well the extant land policies
specifically prohibited the transfer of lease,
and therefore, all the transfers made by the
original allottees were in flagrant breach of

¶806

terms of the lease and of the land policies.
Hence, such transfers, even by virtue of Court's
orders pursuant to the voluntary schemes of
amalgamation or demerger or arrangement, being

¶807

in violation of the terms of lease by the
original allottees were illegal and did not
create any legal right in favour of the
transferees – petitioners. Though the said

¶808

petitioners are the occupiers of the subject
lands, they could not be said to be in

¶809

authorized occupation.

¶810

20.The term of the original lease might be

¶811

subsisting on the date of filing of the

¶812

petition, however, the original allottee having
committed breach of terms of lease deed/LOA by

¶813

Page 135 of 273

¶814

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶815

transferring the lease in favour of the
transferees, such transferee – petitioners would

¶816

not have legal right in respect of the land in
question. Similarly if the transfer is made

¶817

after the expiry of such lease period, such
transferee – petitioner also would not have
legal right inasmuch as the transferor –
original allottee itself had ceased to have any
legal right to continue under the lease deed.

¶818

Similarly, the original allottee in whose favour
only LOA was issued and no lease deed was

¶819

executed could not have transferred the lease in
favour of the transferee petitioner. As stated

¶820

earlier, the very existence of legal right in
favour of the petitioner is the foundation and
precondition for maintaining the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

¶821

legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily
be the right of the writ petitioner himself, who
complains infraction of such right, as held by
Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan

¶822

Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(supra). The concerned petitioners being in
unauthorized occupation of the plots in

¶823

Page 136 of 273

¶824

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶825

question, and their legal rights having not been
recognized by the respondent KPT, they could not
be said to be the persons, who have suffered any
legal injury or the "persons aggrieved" to file

¶826

the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

¶827

21.At this juncture, it would be apposite

¶828

to mention that the Court has made the aforesaid

¶829

observations only for limited purpose of

¶830

examining the locus of the petitioners against
whom the preliminary objections for maintaining

¶831

the petitions at their instance, were raised by

¶832

the respondent KPT, and has not gone into the
issue of their liability to pay the transfer

¶833

fees. The Court is required to make this
clarification as the predecessor of the
petitioner IMC Limited i.e. the USTTL, the

¶834

original allottee had filed Special Civil
Application No.17559 of 2003 before this Court,
challenging the action of the respondent KPT in

¶835

demanding the amount of premium vide
communication dated 5/6.8.2003. Pending the said

¶836

petition, the said USTTL having been amalgamated
with M/s.IMC by virtue of the order passed by

¶837

Page 137 of 273

¶838

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶839

Calcutta High Court, the petitioner M/s.IMC had
filed Civil Application No.6449 of 2016 for
substituting it as the petitioner in the said
petition in place of USTTL. The said Civil
Application was opposed by the respondent KPT on
the ground that the petitioner had not paid the
transfer fee. The Single Bench vide the order
dated 14.7.2017 dismissed both the Special Civil
Application No.17559 of 2003 as well as the
Civil Application No.6449 of 2016 filed therein.
M/s.IMC Limited, therefore, had filed the LPA

¶840

No.1264 of 2017 before the Division Bench, which
came to be disposed of vide the order dated
9.8.2017, whereby the Division Bench remanded
the matter to the Single Bench for considering
the points formulated therein. Hence, the issue
of liability of the petitioner M/s.IMC to pay

¶841

the transfer fee to the KPT is pending for
consideration in the said petition. Similarly,
M/s.Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd., had
also filed two petitions being SCA No.11751 of
2014 challenging the action of the respondent

¶842

KPT in demanding the transfer fee and the
differential amount of lease rent for the period

¶843

Page 138 of 273

¶844

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶845

from 1994 to 2012, and had filed SCA No.16908 of
2014challengingtheorderdated
5.3.2011/Notification dated 11.5.2011 issued by
the Temp. It appears that the said petitioner
M/s.Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd., had
also filed Civil Application being No.11998 of
2015 in SCA No.11751 of 2014 challenging the
notice dated 9.10.2015 issued by the KPT
demanding the outstanding dues. The said Civil
Application was dismissed by the Single Bench
vide the order dated 31.8.2017 against which
M/s.Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd., has
preferred LPA No.1492 of 2017. The said LPA is
pending before the Division Bench.

¶846

22.In that view of the matter, in absence
of any existing legal right in favour of the
petitioners M/s.IMC Ltd., M/s.JR Tank and
Terminals, M/s.Kesar Terminals, M/s. Mother
Dairy and M/s.INEOS Styrolution India Ltd., they
could not allege infringement of their right for
posing themselves as the "aggrieved persons".
They, therefore, could not be said to have any
locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶847

Page 139 of 273

¶848

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶849

Of course, the Court had permitted the concerned
Advocates appearing for these petitioners to
make their submissions on merits, in view of the
fact that the Court was simultaneously hearing
the other petitions involving similar issues as
raised by the said petitioners.

¶850

COMMON SUBMISSIONS IN ALL THE PETITIONS :

¶851

23.Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Soparkar having

¶852

led the group has made following common
submissions, which are applicable to the facts
of almost all the petitions, and which have also
been adopted by all the learned Advocates
appearing for the respective petitioners.

¶853

(i)There was no delay on the part of the

¶854

petitioners in challenging the action of the KPT
and the Notifications issued by the Temp, on the
contrary the demands raised by the KPT were

¶855

hopelessly time barred. Even otherwise, the
provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the

¶856

writ proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in

¶857

case of Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner &

¶858

Ors., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 1 and in case of

¶859

M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India, reported in

¶860

(1995) 5 SCC 628.

¶861

Page 140 of 273

¶862

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶863

(ii)The respondent Port Trust constituted

¶864

under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is not a
Government in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of Board of Trustees for

¶865

Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 78, and
therefore, it cannot seek to issue demand
notices relating to the demands earlier than
three years. In the instant cases, the KPT has
sought to revise the demands going back to more
than 15 years.

¶866

(iii)There is no basis justifying the KPT's
demand seeking levy of lease rents with
retrospective effect. None of the lease
deeds/letters of allotments permitted recovery
of lease rents with retrospective effect. The
retrospective levies cannot be made in absence
of contractual provisions as held by the Supreme
Court in case ofNational Sample Survey
Organization Vs. Champa Properties, reported in

¶867

(2009) 14 SCC 451 and in case of Assistant
Excise Commissioner & Ors Vs. ISSAC Peter,

¶868

reported in (1994) 4 SCC 104.

¶869

(iv)The TAMP also does not have any power

¶870

Page 141 of 273

¶871

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶872

to increase lease rents retrospectively as held
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of

¶873

Hindustan Lever Limited & Anr. Vs. Board of

¶874

Trustees, Vishakhapatnam & Anr., reported in AIR
2003 AP 217. Reliance is also placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of Lala

¶875

Ram (dead) through Legal Representatives and

¶876

Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2015) 5 SCC 813 to submit that the demand for
levy of lease rents with retrospective effect
deserves to be set aside.

¶877

(v) The KPT had misrepresented the contractual

¶878

provisions before the TAMP when a pointed query
was raised by the TAMP as to whether the lease
agreement with the lessees contained a clause
allowing for retrospective revisions of the
lease rentals and the KPT confirmed that there
were provisions for such revisions. According to

¶879

the petitioners, none of the clauses of lease
deeds permitted or supported the retrospective
claims of the KPT.

¶880

(vi)The KPT cannot be permitted to take

¶881

advantage of the devastation of Kandla Region

¶882

due to natural disasters such as super-cyclone

¶883

Page 142 of 273

¶884

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶885

in 1998 and earthquake in 2001 for revising the

¶886

lease rents with retrospective effect, when TAMP
itself had refused to revise the lease rents for
the said period between 1999 to 2004 on the

¶887

ground that Kandla Region was devastated due to
natural disasters.

¶888

(vii)The KPT's response to the TAMP's

¶889

queries were misleading, evasive and inaccurate,
and the TAMP also had taken into consideration

¶890

irrelevant factors in determining the rates,
without taking into consideration the specific
representationsmadebythe

¶891

petitioners/association representing Liquid Tank
Terminals.

¶892

(viii)After the rejection of KPT's proposal

¶893

for revision of rates by the TAMP during the
period of natural disasters, the KPT had
consciously chosen not to take any action till
2010, and therefore, lease rentals for the past
years would be hit by the law of limitation and
the KPT would also be estopped from claiming
such amounts.

¶894

(ix)The TAMP's order/notification of 2011

¶895

was initially valid only till December 2013 and

¶896

Page 143 of 273

¶897

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶898

thereafter was extended till June 2014 as the
proposal for revising the lease rentals was not
ready. However, the order passed by the TAMP on
13.11.2014 was sought to be retrospectively
applied from January 1, 2014, instead of giving
effect from July 1, 2014.

¶899

(x)The TAMP had abdicated its function as

¶900

an adjudicator by accepting all the submissions
made by the KPT with respect to retrospectivity
in the impugned orders/notifications passed by
the TAMP in 2011 and 2014.

¶901

(xi)Even the Major Port Trusts Act does not
permit the retrospective levy of lease rentals.
Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court

¶902

in case of C.W.T. Vs. Shravan Kumar Swarup and

¶903

Sons, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 623, it is

¶904

submitted that substantive law cannot be made
applicable with retrospective effect, unless
done so by way of statute itself.

¶905

(xii)Challenging exorbitant increase of
lease rents, it is submitted that in the 2011
order the KPT had sought to justify the increase
in lease rents, which were not revised for
several years. Even if it is assumed arguendo

¶906

Page 144 of 273

¶907

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶908

that it was sustainable, the said increase was
unreasonable, exorbitant and arbitrary. The 2011
order came into effect only from May 20, 2013
and it was revised again under 2014 order. The
State instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily and
exorbitantly increase the rents as observed by
the Bombay High Court in case of Ratti Palonji

¶909

Kapadia & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 1992 SC Online Bombay 197.

¶910

(xiii)The valuation allegedly arrived at by
the KPT in 2005 tender to justify the exorbitant

¶911

increase, should not have been relied upon by

¶912

the TAMP, as the said tender had failed. The
2010 Land Policy provided that the market value
of the land was to be determined on the highest
accepted bid of land, and admittedly under the
2011 order, the KPT had based its calculations

¶913

on the 2005 tender which had failed. Under 2014

¶914

order also the KPT had based its calculations on

¶915

the 2011 tender, which was cancelled. Hence,

¶916

such incomplete bid for a single parcel of land

¶917

cannot form the basis of the market value for
several plots of land.

¶918

(xiv)In the decision of Madras High Court in

¶919

Page 145 of 273

¶920

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶921

case of PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. Vs. TAMP &

¶922

Ors., (Order dated 15.10.2009 in Writ Petition
No.1350 of 2009), the Madras High Court had set
aside the TAMP order on the ground that it was

¶923

based on irrelevant factors. In the instant
cases also the TAMP had failed to take its
decision within the parameters prescribed by
law.

¶924

(xv)Though it is trite that the Court will

¶925

not substitute its own wisdom for those of

¶926

specialized experts, at the same time a balance

¶927

must be struck and the Court must intervene in

¶928

case of any perversity. According to the
petitioners, the valuation report relied upon by
the KPT (produced in SCA No.2607 of 2012) was ex

¶929

facie perverse and based on surmises. There was

¶930

no independent verification carried out to
corroborate the information given to the
valuers.

¶931

(xvi) The TAMP in 2011 order should not have
accepted the calculations made by the KPT

¶932

erroneously relying upon 2005 tender, because
the payment model under 2005 tender was changed

¶933

from 'premium-cum-lease rent' structure followed

¶934

Page 146 of 273

¶935

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶936

earlier to a 'single lump sum consideration' in
the form of a higher premium and token Re.1

¶937

lease structure.

¶938

(xvii)Clause 7 of the General Lease Deed

¶939

provides that the KPT could revise the ground
rent, as fixed under the lease deed, every ten

¶940

years, however, not exceeding double the

¶941

original ground rent for the second ten years,
and after 20 years, not exceeding thrice the

¶942

ground rent. The lease rentals sought to be
imposed now are in violation of the said clause
of the lease deed.

¶943

(xviii)The KPT's actions fall foul of the test

¶944

of reasonableness laid down by the Supreme Court

¶945

in case of Dwarkadas Marfatia Vs. Board of

¶946

Trustees of the Port of Bombay, reported in
(1989) 3 SCC 293 and in case of Jamshed Hormusji

¶947

Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai,

¶948

reported in (2004) 3 SCC 214.

¶949

(xix)Though there was clear understanding

¶950

between the parties, at the time of execution of
lease that since the lease fell under the

¶951

premium-cum-lease model, the lease rentals would
undergo a reasonable increase, however, the

¶952

Page 147 of 273

¶953

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶954

arbitrary and unreasonable increase of lease
rentals was never contemplated, totally
disregarding the high premium paid by the
petitioners. In this regard, reliance is placed
on the decision of he Supreme Court in case of

¶955

Bhupendra Singh Bhatia Vs. State of Madhya

¶956

Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 700.

¶957

(xx)Asregardsthe

¶958

classification/categorization of the land it has

¶959

been submitted that the lands occupied by the
petitioners were originally categorized on the

¶960

basis of the geographical location of such land,

¶961

however, the 2014 TAMP order confirmed the

¶962

arbitrary re-categorization of the lands, more

¶963

particularly of liquid storage lands into new

¶964

category i.e. Category G-1 (land situated from

¶965

Eastern Bank of Kandla Creek to Western Bank of

¶966

Nakti Creek). Such re-categorization was made

¶967

only for the purpose of claiming enhanced rents.

¶968

(xxi)The re-categorization under the 2014

¶969

TAMP order is erroneous as it was done without

¶970

hearing the concerned petitioners IMC and JRE

¶971

and the same was also not in accordance with the

¶972

Land Policy Guidelines. According to the

¶973

Page 148 of 273

¶974

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶975

petitioners, under the 2014 Land Policy
Guidelines, use of the land was not a relevant
factor and the only factor which could have been
accepted was the highest accepted tender amount.

¶976

Though the 2010 Policy Guidelines provided for
"use of land as valid consideration", there was
conscious departure from the earlier guidelines,
in the 2014 Policy Guidelines, in which the word
"use" was excluded. In this regard, the
petitioners have placed reliance on the decision
of the Supreme Court in case of Chandra Kishore

¶977

Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad & Ors., reported in
1999(8) SCC 266 and in case of J. Jayalalitha &

¶978

Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in
2014(2) SCC 401.

¶979

(xxii)Even assuming that the categorization
on the basis of use of land was permissible, the
KPT was required to categorize all the lands on
the basis of the user, however, there was no
other category of land made other than Liquid
Tank Farm Terminals. The said petitioners,
therefore, have been singled out and subjected
to exorbitant increase in the rents more
particularly on the basis of re-categorization.

¶980

Page 149 of 273

¶981

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶982

(xxiii)Once the TAMP having come to the
conclusion that the guidelines did not
permit/provide for re-categorization of the
lands on the basis of use, it ought to have

¶983

rejected KPT's proposal to re-categorize the

¶984

lands. The re-categorization was not based on

¶985

any intelligible differentia as the KPT and TAMP

¶986

both have failed to justify such re-
categorization on the basis of use. The

¶987

submission made on behalf of the KPT that a new
entrant would be required to match the rent paid

¶988

by the petitioners, and therefore, the scale of

¶989

rent was increased, should not be accepted as

¶990

the contracts with new entrants would be fresh

¶991

contracts regulated by the statute and the

¶992

policy directions issued by the Government from
time to time. The petitioners cannot be equated

¶993

with the fresh lessees during the subsistence of
their lease.

¶994

(xxiv)The judgements cited by the learned Sr.
Advocate Mr.Joshi for the KPT on various issues

¶995

have been distinguished by the learned Advocates
appearing for the petitioners. The same shall be
dealt with herein under at appropriate stages.

¶996

Page 150 of 273

¶997

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶998

PETITION-WISE SUBMISSIONS :

¶999

24.The respective learned Advocates

¶1000

appearing for the petitioners, in addition to
the afore-stated common submissions, have made
submissions individually also, which may be
summarized as under:-

¶1001

(i)Mr.Soparkar submitted that the petitioner
M/s.IMC Ltd., in addition to the regular lease
rentals prevailing prior to the revision of SOR
had made payment of Rs.2,02,94,150/- during the
period January 2014 to January 2018 so far as
the subject plot of SCA No.2535 of 2017 was
concerned and had made payment of Rs.84,80,655/-
during January 2014 to January 2018 so far as
the subject plot of SCA No.2536 of 2017 was
concerned. The petitioner M/s.JRE had made
payment of Rs.52,76,389/- for the subject plot
of SCA No.2537 of 2017.

¶1002

(ii)As regards the subject plot in SCA
No.2538 of 2017, he submitted that the Clause-8
of the lease deed dated 17.9.1984 executed

¶1003

Page 151 of 273

¶1004

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1005

between M/s.IMC Limited and the KPT provided
that the renewal shall be granted for a further

¶1006

period of 30 years at the lessee's i.e.
petitioner's option. Therefore, the petitioner

¶1007

vide the letter dated 5.5.2008 had applied for
the renewal of the lease deed in accordance with
the said Clause 8 and the KPT had requested the
petitioner to submit an undertaking in the
format attached to the letter, which undertaking

¶1008

was provided by the petitioner to the KPT. The
KPT thereafter vide the letter dated 8.10.2013

¶1009

declined to renew the petitioner's lease relying
on the Land Policy Guidelines of 2014 on the

¶1010

ground that the land was required for the
purpose of its own use. Thereafter vide the
letter dated 16.3.2015, the KPT informed the
petitioner that the petitioner's request to

¶1011

renew the lease deed would be considered if all
the outstanding dues are cleared. Thereafter on

¶1012

28.8.2018 KPT issued an order/notice under
Section 4(1) and (2) of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1971,

¶1013

claiming that on the expiry of the lease, it was
decided not to renew the lease further as the

¶1014

Page 152 of 273

¶1015

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1016

plot was required for the purpose ports'
activities. The petitioner, therefore, had
filed Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in SCA
No.2538 of 2017 and the Court had directed the

¶1017

KPT to maintain status-quo. Such an action on
the part of the KPT was arbitrary and in breach

¶1018

of the specific term of the lease deed.

¶1019

(iii)So far as SCA No.13371 of 2013 and

¶1020

SCA No.8538 of 2016 filed by Mother Dairy Fruits
and Vegetables are concerned, it has been

¶1021

submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate

¶1022

Mr.Soparkar that despite several letters written

¶1023

by the petitioner informing the KPT about the
amalgamation order passed by the High Court, and
requesting it to change the name from 'Dhara' to
that of the petitioner, the respondent KPT did
not reply, however, during the pendency of the
petition, for the first time on 9.11.2015 the

¶1024

KPT informed the petitioner that the application

¶1025

for change of name was not considered.
Thereafter on 27th June 2017, the KPT approved
the change of name, but demanded transfer fees

¶1026

at six times the rates revised by the TAMP order

¶1027

Page 153 of 273

¶1028

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1029

dated 25.3.2011. The transfer fees claimed in
the said letter was arbitrary. It has also been
contended that the decision to re-categorize the
petitioner Mother Dairy from category A to G-1
was also arbitrary and without any authority. No
notice prior to change of category was given to
the petitioner and no reasons were given as to
why the category of the petitioner was changed.

¶1030

(iv)So far as SCA Nos.673 of 2014 and 2607

¶1031

of 2012 filed by the Indian Farmers Fertilizers
Cooperative Society Ltd. (IFFCO) are concerned,

¶1032

it has been submitted by Mr.Soparkar for
M/s.Nanavati Associates that the petitioner

¶1033

company utilizes the land in question for the
production of fertilizer, which is supplied at
the de-controlled prices to the farmers of about
40000 cooperative societies. The petitioner
company, therefore, would fall either under Sub-

¶1034

section (c) of (d) of Section 49(1) of the said
Act. The petitioner has also played a major role

¶1035

in pushing the agricultural sector towards the

¶1036

next phase of green revolution. Hence, the
petitioner could not be treated at par with the

¶1037

Page 154 of 273

¶1038

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1039

organizations, which are for profit making, and
the petitioner could not be charged at the
commercial rates.

¶1040

petitioner IFFCO had always proposed upfront

¶1041

payment of lease for the entire tenure of 30
years when the old lease was going to an end.
The KPT itself vide its letter dated 7.9.2010
had resolved to renew the lease for Phase-II
land for a period of 30 years from 9.3.2008 to
7.3.2038 on the payment of upfront premium. Even
as per the stand taken by the KPT, the land
policy being a legislation has to be given
effect to, which policy mandates preference to
be given to upfront premium method of collecting
rent over the yearly rent collection. Hence, the
rate at which such upfront premium would be paid
would be the relevant rate at that point of time

¶1042

and the future rates cannot be made
retroactively applicable to the petitioner, more
particularly when the petitioner had chosen to
make upfront payment of premium for the entire
lease period.

¶1043

Page 155 of 273

¶1044

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1045

(vi)Mr.Soparkar further submitted that the
petitioner IFFCO had made timely applications
for renewal and the leases were not renewed on
the ground that they were under consideration by
the Union. Hence, the KPT could not claim right
to charge bills of compensation while keeping
the renewal applications pending. Under the
circumstances, the KPT has no right to raise
bills of compensation for alleging unauthorized
use and that too, levying rates as per the
prevailing scale of rates.

¶1046

(vii)The petitioner IFFCO's application for

¶1047

renewal made in the year 2008 could not be made
subject to the land policy that came into force
in 2011 solely for the reason that approval by
the Union was not granted. The land policy
unjustifiably grants unfettered powers to the
respondent authorities for fixation of scale of
rates and under such powers the respondent
authorities have increased the lease rates

¶1048

dehors Clause 7 of the Lease Agreement. Lastly
it is submitted that the petitioner has been

¶1049

wrongly categorized as under Category B-1,

¶1050

Page 156 of 273

¶1051

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1052

instead of Category B-2, inasmuch as Category B-
1 covers lands having water front, whereas the
subject land granted to the petitioner does not
have any water front at all.

¶1053

(viii)So far as Special Civil Application

¶1054

No.11497 of 2015 filed by M/s.Kesar Terminals
and Infrastructure Ltd is concerned, it has been
submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.B. B.
Naik that the contracts (leases) entered into
between the KPT and the petitioner (its
predecessor) in respect of the parcels of lands
in question are binding to both the parties and

¶1055

the KPT is not entitled to increase the rent
amount and demand more than what is provided in
the lease agreement. The KPT had entered into
separate, independent lease agreements out of
which the lease in respect of 6877.97 sq. mtrs.
of the land executed on 26.8.1986 for a period
of 30 years with effect from 3.7.1978 had
expired on 2.7.2008 and the application for its
renewal is pending with the KPT. The said lease
deed provided that the lease rent fixed at
Rs.2.88 per sq. mtrs., could be increased at the

¶1056

Page 157 of 273

¶1057

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1058

end of 10 years so as not to exceed double the
amount i.e. Rs.5.76 per sq. mtrs., and it can
further be increased at the end of 20 years,

¶1059

however, the increase could not exceed three

¶1060

times the rent fixed i.e. Rs.8.64 per sq. mtrs..
Hence, the KPT was not entitled to claim any
rent higher than what is stated during the
period of lease on its own or on the basis of
TAMP order. Since the renewal application is

¶1061

pending, it could not be said that the
petitioner is an unauthorized occupant since the
2008.

¶1062

(ix)Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Naik further

¶1063

submitted that the TAMP could fix different

¶1064

schedule of rates only prospectively and not
retrospectively in view of the Sections 48 and
49 of the said Act, and therefore, the order
dated 25.3.2011 of the TAMP to the extent it

¶1065

operates retrospectively is bad. In this regard,
he has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme

¶1066

Court in case of Dr.Indramani Pyarelal Gupta

¶1067

and Ors. Vs. W. R. Natu and Ors., reported in

¶1068

AIR 1963 SC 274, in case Bakul Cashew Co. and

¶1069

Page 158 of 273

¶1070

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1071

Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Quilon and Anr.,
reported in 1986(2) SCC 365, and in case of
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra
thro. STF, CBI Mumbai, reported in (2013) 13 SCC
1.

¶1072

(x)Mr.Naik further submitted that Sections
48 and 49 provide as to for which items

¶1073

different rates could be determined by the TAMP
and the subject lands are included in Clause (d)
of Sub-section(1) of Section 49, for which there

¶1074

is no provision enabling the TAMP to impose
different rates on the basis of use of land.
Accordingly, the maxim - "expressum facit
cessare tacitum" would apply, which means "when
there is express mention of certain things, then
anything not mentioned is excluded". He has
relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court
in case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tulsiram

¶1075

Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, in case of
Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium
Technical Services Inc., reported in (2012) 9
SCC 552, and in case of Competition Commission
of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited

¶1076

Page 159 of 273

¶1077

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1078

and Anr., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 744 on the

¶1079

cardinal principle of rule of construction of
statute. Relying upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa and

¶1080

Ors. Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., reported

¶1081

in (2004) 1 SCC 139 he submitted that the

¶1082

principle of promissory estoppel also would
apply in the present cases.

¶1083

(xi)Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta

¶1084

appearing with the learned Advocate Mr.Premal
Rachh for the petitioner M/s.Kesar Terminals &
InfrastructureLtd.,inSpecialCivil

¶1085

Application Nos.10730, 10891 and 10892 of 2016
submitted that the petitioner was allotted

¶1086

parcels of lands on leave and licence basis,
which having expired, the KPT has issued notices

¶1087

under the Public Premises Act, which are under
challenge. Though the petitioner had applied for

¶1088

renewal of the leave and licence agreement,

¶1089

there was no reply to the said letters and on

¶1090

the contrary, the KPT has issued compensatory

¶1091

bills, demanding astronomical amount. The

¶1092

petitioner had also tried to pay some of the

¶1093

Page 160 of 273

¶1094

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1095

bills, however, the same was not accepted by the

¶1096

KPT on the ground that the name of the
petitioner Company was different. He further
submitted that the original allottee having been
amalgamated with the petitioner Company by
virtue of the order passed by the Bombay High
Court, the KPT should have accepted the amount
of compensatory bills offered by the petitioner
Company. He further submitted that the impugned
notices issued under Section 4 of the Public
Premises Act do not speak about unauthorized
occupation of the petitioner, and that such
notices were arbitrary and illegal.

¶1097

(xii)Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. K. S. Nanavati

¶1098

with learned Advocate Mr.Golani appearing for
the petitioner INEOS in SCA No.10611 of 2016
has submitted that the petitioner Company had
taken necessary permissions from the statutory
authorities before changing its name and the
Registrar of Companies after being satisfied had
issued fresh certificates of incorporation under
the changed name of the petitioner company from
time to time as per the provisions contained in

¶1099

Page 161 of 273

¶1100

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1101

Section 23 of the Companies Act. The respondent

¶1102

KPT could not levy exceptionally high lease
rents and that too, with retrospective effect on
the ground that the company is using the land,
categorized as land for storage tanks and is
generating high income by sub-letting the said
land. The land of the petitioner, which is
categorized as land of storage tank, is used by
the petitioner to store raw-material for its own
consumption and use. If the lease rents are
permitted to be increased retrospectively, it
would cause havoc in the organization of the
petitioner as the petitioner would not be able
to recover the same from its consumers by giving
retrospective effect of increase in the cost of
goods. New rates would be applicable to the new
leases and not to the existing leases, otherwise
it would tantamount to a novation of contract.

¶1103

(xiii)So far as SCA No.2905 of 2015 filed by
M/s.AVEAN International Pvt. Ltd. is concerned,

¶1104

learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore appearing
with Ms.Archana Acharya has submitted that the
renewal of lease of plots, whose lease period

¶1105

Page 162 of 273

¶1106

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1107

expired prior to commencement of Land Policy of
2010, the Land Policy of 2004 prevailing at the

¶1108

relevant point of time should be made
applicable, which provided inter alia that the
lease in favour of the existing lessee at the
terms to be approved by the Board without public
auction or tender should be renewed. Merely
because the KPT did not exercise its powers
under the Land Policy of 2004, the petitioner
lessee should not be made to suffer. As per the
Land Policy Guidelines, the existing lessee has
the first right and only after the existing
lessee refused to renew the lease, the KPT could
put the land to tender-cum-auction. There has
been inordinate delay on the part of the KPT in

¶1109

renewing the lease and now is raising
compensation bills by charging illegal and
exorbitant rent charges.

¶1110

(xiv)Mr.Thakore further submitted that the
rate of ground rent at the time of expiry of

¶1111

lease in 2008 was Rs.5.40 per sq. mtrs., per
annum. After the expiry of the lease agreement

¶1112

the KPT unilaterally fixed the ground rent at

¶1113

Page 163 of 273

¶1114

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1115

Rs.119.50 per sq. mtrs., per annum up to 2014,
which was absolutely illegal and arbitrary.
Though the subject plot allotted to the
petitioner AVEAN falls under the Category D-2,
the KPT has wrongly classified it under the
Category A for the period from 1999 onwards, and
under Category G-1 from 2014 onwards.

¶1116

(xv)So far as SCA No.10306 of 2015 filed by
M/s.Tanker Owner and Operations Association is
concerned, learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore
appearing with Ms.Archana Acharya submitted that
the petitioner had already made application for
renewal of lease on 9.5.2011 i.e. one year prior
to the expiry of its lease, and thereafter the
petitioner had also sent reminder for renewal of
lease on 20.11.2012, however, the respondent KPT
had informed the petitioner vide the letter
dated 15.12.2012 that the petitioner had not
made application for renewal of lease one year
before the date of expiry of lease. The
respondent KPT has not renewed the lease without
any justifiable reason and has kept on raising
compensation bills by charging exorbitant rate

¶1117

Page 164 of 273

¶1118

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1119

of ground rent, which the petitioner has always
paid the same. It is further submitted that the
plot of the petitioner has been wrongly
categorized under the Category F-2 i.e. the
Category for the plots situated on Ahmedabad
Side from Kandla Railway Station, though the
plot of the petitioner is not situated near to
Kandla Railway Station.

¶1120

(xvi)Learned Advocate Mr.Akshat Khare

¶1121

appearing for the petitioner ONGC in SCA No.9342
of 2015 submitted that there was no provision of

¶1122

retroactive clause in leave and licence
agreement entered into between the parties.
Though no bills were raised by he KPT prior to
2011, the illegal demand has been made on the
ground of unauthorized use of the plot by the
ONGC. The KPT has filed eviction petition before
the Estate Officer on 29.1.2013 to which the

¶1123

petitioner ONGC has filed detailed reply giving
details of payment made till 21.2.2013. The ONGC

¶1124

has handed over the premises on 23.12.2014 and
informed the KPT vide the letter dated 2.1.2015,
however, the Estate Officer passed the eviction

¶1125

Page 165 of 273

¶1126

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1127

order on 19.2.2015 holding ONGC as unauthorized
occupant.

¶1128

(xvii)Learned Advocate Mr.Salil Thakore

¶1129

appearing for the petitioner Laxmi Motors in SCA
No.16225 of 2013 submitted that 30 years' lease

¶1130

deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on
30.11.1984 and the petitioner has been paying
the ground rent regularly. However, the KPT
demanded Rs.2,26,068/- for the period from
7.11.2012 to 6.11.2013 at the new rate pursuant

¶1131

to the TAMP order of 2011. The petitioner made
payment accordingly and sought renewal of the

¶1132

lease deed for a further period of 30 years from
7.11.2013. The KPT called upon the petitioner to

¶1133

submit an undertaking which was also submitted
by the petitioner, however, the KPT raised new
demand of Rs.21,49,067/- with respect to the
lease rentals from 1994 onwards and the
petitioner, therefore, raised objections. The
KPT again made demand of Rs.22,60,046/- by
letter dated 29.5.2013, which has been
challenged by the petitioner in the petition.
According to Mr.Thakore, the TAMP as a creature

¶1134

Page 166 of 273

¶1135

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1136

of the statute and has no power to fix scale of
rents retrospectively. In this regard he has
relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
case of Hukam Chand etc. Vs. Union of India and
Ors., reported in AIR 1972 SC 2427, in case of
Vice Chancellor, M. D. University Rohtak Vs.
Jahan Singh, reported in 2007(5) SCC 77, in case
of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2006) 3
SCC 620and others in support of his
submissions. The action taken by the KPT under
the Public Premises Act is also arbitrary and
illegal.

¶1137

(xviii)LearnedAdvocateMs.MeenuShah
appearing for the petitioner HPCL in SCA
No.16530 of 2013 and SCA No.6909 of 2018
submitted that there were five parcels of lands
allotted to the petitioner, however, one plot
has already been surrendered on 30th October,
2015 to the KPT, the leases of two plots are due
to expire in 2020 and the leases of remaining
two plots have expired on 1.12.2013 and 1.8.2014
respectively. The petitioner has already paid

¶1138

Page 167 of 273

¶1139

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1140

all the dues up to 2013 as per the TAMP order
under protest, however, she submitted that the
TAMP could not have given effect of the impugned
order with respective effect. In this regard,
she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in case ofVice-Chancellor, M. D.

¶1141

University, Rohtak, reported in (2007) 5 SCC
77.

¶1142

(xix)Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Manish Bhatt

¶1143

appearing for the petitioner IOC in SCA No.13409
of 2014 submitted that the petitioner was
allotted parcels of lands from time to time by
either executing lease deed or by letter of
allotment. Though the term of lease deed/term of
allotment had expired, the petitioner had
requested the KPT to renew the same, however,
the same was not replied to. He further
submitted that the KPT had made exorbitant
demand of rental charges with retrospective
effect, which was not permissible. He further
submitted that the TAMP, which was a statutory
authority, had without application of kind
abdicated its function and accepted all the

¶1144

Page 168 of 273

¶1145

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1146

proposals made by the KPT by passing the
impugned orders. According to him, the
categorization of the lands on the basis of use
made by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP was
also arbitrary and irrational. The land of the
petitioner was categorized in Category G-1,
instead of Category G without any justifiable
reason.

¶1147

(xx)The learned Advocate Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa
for the petitioner PSL in SCA No.5218 of 2014
and others has submitted that the petitioner was
in possession of five plots, however, the
proceedings under the Public Premises Act having
been initiated by the respondent KPT, all the
lands have been surrendered by the petitioner
and the respondent Port has taken over the
possession of the same. However, the petitions
have been filed challenging the unreasonable
demand made by the respondent KPT at exorbitant
rates without any basis and also challenging the
compensation bills issued by the KPT. According
to her such action being arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the

¶1148

Page 169 of 273

¶1149

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1150

bills issued by the KPT deserve to be quashed
and set aside.

¶1151

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT KPT :-

¶1152

25.The learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi
appearing with Mr.Dhaval Vyas for the KPT made
the following submissions:-

¶1153

(i)The nature/exercise of rent fixation has to

¶1154

be considered, keeping in view the policy of
land allotment, the practice and policy of rent
determination,therelevantstatutory
provisions, and the binding Government

¶1155

directions issued under Section 111 of the said
Act, in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of Yazdani International Private

¶1156

Limited Vs. Auroglobal Comtrade Private Limited

¶1157

and Os., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 657.

¶1158

(ii)The lease of the lands necessarily had to be
by a contract as contemplated under Section 34
of the said Act. Though each contract would
contain clauses for lease rent, its rates,
revisions etc., the lease rent and its revisions
were the issues of policies and the directions

¶1159

Page 170 of 273

¶1160

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1161

issued from time to time by the Central
Government to ensure consistency, equality, and
a level playing field for the lessees.

¶1162

(iii)The determination of lease rent was
being made by the Central government till 1979,
thereafter by the Board of Trustees with the
approval of the Central Government up to 1997,
and thereafter by the TAMP as per the provisions
contained in the said Act.

¶1163

(iii)The first expression of policy was by
the Notification of 1994, whereunder rents were
revised on the basis of category of lands, which
were to remain operative for a period of five
years. Thereafter, the policy directions were
issued under Section 111 of the said Act by the
Central Government vide the Land Policy for
Major Ports 2004, Policy of 2010 and Policy of
2015, which stipulated that the lease rents
would be 6% of the market value of the land as
revised every five years, and that it would
continue to be based on the category of the
land. Accordingly, the liability i.e. 6% of
market value, the methodology i.e. on the basis

¶1164

Page 171 of 273

¶1165

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1166

of market value, and the periodicity i.e. every
five years was already fixed and imposed. The
only component remaining was the determination
of scale of rates on the basis of market value

¶1167

by the TAMP after considering the views of
stake-holders. Hence, the TAMP vide the impugned
orders has only undertaken the exercise of
quantification of the liabilities already
imposed on the lessees by the Central Government

¶1168

Policies. Section 49 of the said Act confer
quasi legislativepowers on the Board of

¶1169

Trustees/TAMP for fixing the scale of rates.
Therefore,thecontentionsregarding

¶1170

retrospectivity of subordinate legislation are
absolutely misplaced.

¶1171

(v)In any case, quantification of liability
subsequent to its imposition cannot be said to
be retrospective in decision as held by this

¶1172

Court in case of Cadila Laboratories Limited and

¶1173

Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2001(1) GLR
48. The determination of market value by the

¶1174

TAMP in any case has to be impliedly

¶1175

retrospective as the same is determined after

¶1176

Page 172 of 273

¶1177

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1178

the circulation of proposal, hearing stake-

¶1179

holders etc., which would take some time and
must of necessity relate back. In this regard,
he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme

¶1180

Court in case ofKanoria Chemicals and

¶1181

Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And

¶1182

Ors., reported in 1992(2) SCC 124. In the
alternative, it has been submitted that once
lessees are informed that the current rates
would be only up to 1999, the rates are rendered
provisional and the subsequent finalization
thereof would naturally relate back, which could
not be said to be retrospective in nature.

¶1183

(vi)There was no delay in making demand at

¶1184

the instance of the KPT, as the lessees were

¶1185

always aware that they were liable to pay rates
as revised from time to time as stated in the
lease deeds/allotment letters. Such revision

¶1186

was, however, made uniform by the policy of the
Government issued from time to time. Delay in
quantification does not discharge the lessees

¶1187

from the obligation to make payment at the
revised rates, more particularly when they are

¶1188

Page 173 of 273

¶1189

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1190

enjoying public property, and they cannot
profiteer by charging current commercial rents
from their customers while paying abysmally low
rates fixed decades back to the KPT. The delay

¶1191

by some officers of the KPT may warrant
disciplinary action against them but that would
not discharge the lessees/petitioners from the
obligations to the State.

¶1192

(vii)Justifying the delay, it has been

¶1193

submitted that the process of revision of rents
had started in 1999 well before the expiry of
five-year period under the 1994 Notification,

¶1194

however, because of the direction of the TAMP to
reclassify the lands as per the use in 1999, and
thereafter earthquake having taken place in
2001, revised policy of the Government to shift
the allotment of lands and fixation of lease
rents on upfront premium basis in accordance

¶1195

with auction rates in 2000-2002 etc., and the
auction having taken place finally in the year
2005 on the basis of the market value, delay in
obtaining environmental clearances culminated
into some delay as observed by the TAMP in its

¶1196

Page 174 of 273

¶1197

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1198

order. A decision was taken by the KPT on
9.2.2010 to cancel the letters of Intent and
call for fresh bids in view of the increase in
the market value of the lands, which was
challenged by the Letters of Intent holders,
including the petitioner IMC and the same was
rejected up to the Supreme Court. Thereafter,

¶1199

the proposal was revised and updated and finally
sent on 19.4.2010 to the TAMP. In this regard,
Mr.Joshi has relied upon the judgement of this
Court in case of Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. thro.

¶1200

Dharmeshbhai Dhirajbhai Pandya Vs. Kandla Port

¶1201

Trust, reported in 2011(2) GLH 283, and of the
Supreme Court in case of Rishi Kiran Logistics

¶1202

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port

¶1203

Trust and Ors., reported in 2015(13) SCC 233.

¶1204

(viii)The lease rent has been determined
under the policy, as being 6% of the market
value, which cannot be termed as arbitrary. Such
fixation is a matter of policy of the Central
Government as best balancing the interests of

¶1205

the individual lessees/allottees and the Port
Trusts themselves, which have to carry on

¶1206

Page 175 of 273

¶1207

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1208

extensive activities in relation to Ports in the
public and national interest.

¶1209

received by the KPT from the petitioner M/s.IMC
in the year 2005 could be considered as "an
accepted tender" or not, it has been submitted
that the bids of 2005 had been accepted by the
Port Trusts by issuing LOI, and therefore, the
petitioner IMC, which had submitted the bid,
cannot complain that the bids were not accepted
by the Port Trusts and that the amount did not

¶1210

correctly reflect the market value. The

¶1211

contracts could not be executed for different
reasons like inordinate delay in securing
permissions under the environmental laws, and
therefore, it could not be the bids were not
accepted by the KPT.

¶1212

(x)The valuation of the other classes of
lands is derived by the valuer on the basis of
applying various parameters and by giving due
weightage to the relevant factors. A valuer's

¶1213

report is specifically permitted mode of
determining market value. The valuation of

¶1214

Page 176 of 273

¶1215

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1216

property is a decision of qualified experts and
the scope of judicial review is extremely
limited. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the decision of the Supreme Court in case of

¶1217

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Cipla Limited and
Anr., reported in 2017(5) SCC 262 and on the
decision of this Court in case of KPT Vs. Shri
Kandla Salt Leaseholders' Welfare Association

¶1218

(LPA No.870 of 2013).

¶1219

(xi)The valuation report of 2010 which is
the basis of the proposal of the Port Trusts
dated 19.4.2010 has recorded the process,
reasons and the manner of valuation.
Accordingly, the valuation of the lands is
worked out for the year 1999, 2004 and 2009,
which has been proposed by the KPT and accepted
after consultation with all stakeholders, by the
TAMP.

¶1220

(xii)The valuation report of 2014 was the
basis of proposal of the KPT forwarded on
26.6.2014, after seeking extension from TAMP,
since the last five year period for which the
rates were approved was from 1.1.2009 to

¶1221

Page 177 of 273

¶1222

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1223

31.12.2013. The valuation proposed by the valuer

¶1224

was modified in certain categories of lands by

¶1225

the Port Trust on the basis of the
recommendations of the expert committee
appointed by it and the basis and justification
of the market value is set out in the TAMP order
dated 13.11.2014.

¶1226

(xiii)The port lands are national resources
and wealth by their unique location and limited
availability. It would amount to granting
special privilege to the lease holders at the
cost of public interest, if the KPT was
compelled to accept the low rents fixed in 1994
till 2011. The petitioners had failed to
demonstrate as to how the fixation of rents on
the basis of 6% of the market value was
unreasonable or unfair.

¶1227

(xiv)The valuation of the land is also based

¶1228

on the use of the land. The rent could not be

¶1229

decided only on the basis of location,
irrespective of use, as the auction of land

¶1230

where a commercially advantageous use is
permitted would fetch a much higher amount than

¶1231

Page 178 of 273

¶1232

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1233

a similarly located plot where such use is not
permitted.

¶1234

(xv)Section 49 of the said Act pertaining
to framing of the scale of rates under which the
property of Trust may be used for the purpose
specified thereunder, and therefore, the purpose
or the use of the land is a criterion recognized
by the statute itself for fixation of scale of

¶1235

rates. The land policy of 2004 and 2011
specifically directed that the scale of rates
should vary in accordance with the purpose of
land use. The 2014 policy while not adopting the
same language, reiterates the principle by
enumerating factors for valuation.

¶1236

(xvi)It cannot be disputed that the value of
the land is dependent on the use to which it
could be put. The land permitted to be used for
tank farms constitutes a class by itself looking
to the nature of use which is peculiar to ports
and interconnected with the facilities relating

¶1237

to a port. Hence, lands used for tank farms
constitute a separate class on the basis of
usage, irrespective of the location of such

¶1238

Page 179 of 273

¶1239

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1240

lands and carry a separate value. It is well
settled that classification on the basis of use
is a valid exercise permissible under the law,
as held by the Supreme Court in case of

¶1241

M/s.Hiralal Rattanlal Etc. etc. Vs. State of U.
P. and Anr. Etc. etc., reported in 1973(1) SCC
216.

¶1242

(xvii)Thecategorizationandsub-

¶1243

categorization was made for valid reasons and
the same has been accepted by the TAMP after
public notice and inviting all stakeholders and
after considering their objections as recorded

¶1244

in the impugned orders. The requirements of
fairness were met by the exercise undertaken by
the TAMP. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the decision of the Supreme Court in case of PTC

¶1245

India Ltd. Vs. General Electricity Regulatory
Commission, thro. Secretary, reported in (2010)
4 SCC 603.

¶1246

(xviii)The allotment/lease of lands of the

¶1247

port trusts is regulated by the statute and the
policy directions issued by the Government from
time to time and has a public law character,

¶1248

Page 180 of 273

¶1249

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1250

which is different from private contract between
the parties. The fixation of lease rent/scale of
rates is also governed by the statutory
provisions and are binding to the leaseholders,

¶1251

and therefore, the TAMP order would be also
binding on the existing lessees/allottees. In
this regard, Mr.Joshi has placed reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of D. K.
Trivedi & Sons and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and

¶1252

Ors., reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 20 and in case
of APM Terminals B. V. Vs. Union of India and
Anr., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 756.

¶1253

(xix)As regards renewals of leases, it has

¶1254

been submitted that as per the land policy for
Major Ports, the renewals of leases are governed

¶1255

by the relevant clauses of the policy relating
to lands within customs bonded area and lands
falling outside such area. The renewals are not

¶1256

as a matter of right. The primary requirement
for considering the request for renewals is the

¶1257

existence of a valid lease and that the lessee

¶1258

should not be in default. Since the basic
parameters have not been satisfied, the

¶1259

Page 181 of 273

¶1260

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1261

petitioners can not seek extension of the lease.

¶1262

(xx) Mr.Joshi has highlighted the issues of delay, conduct of the petitioners, etc., petition-wise to submit that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Mr.Joshi has also distinguished the judgements relied upon by the learned Advocates for the petitioners.

¶1263

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:-

¶1264

26.Before adverting to the respective
submissions made by the learned Advocates for
the parties, it would be apposite to refer to
certain provisions of the said Act. The said Act
has been enacted to make provisions for the
constitution of the Port Authorities for certain
major ports in India and to vest the
administrative control and management of such
ports in such authorities and for matters
connected therewith. The said Act at the first
instance was made applicable to the major ports

¶1265

of Cochin, Kandla and Vishakhapatanam, which
earlier were under the initial charge of port
administrative officer appointed by the Central

¶1266

Page 182 of 273

¶1267

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1268

Government. As per the statement of objects and
reasons, the Port Administrative Officer had
limited powers and had to obtain the orders of
the Central Government of many matters, which
otherwise could have been disposed of at local
level in the Port Trust. Hence, considering the
fact that the other statutory Port Trust had
successfully administered the three older Ports
of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras for many years,

¶1269

it was proposed to constitute port trust at
Vishakhapatanam, Cochin and Kandla. In the year
1997, the said Act was amended by incorporating
Chapter VA pertaining to the constitution of
Tariff Authority for Major Ports, in the said
Act, and empowering the said Authority to
discharge the functions as stated therein.

¶1270

27.Section 34 of the said Act pertains to
the mode of executing contract on behalf of the
Board of Trustees. Second Proviso to the said
Section prohibits making of any contract for the
acquisition or sale of immovable property or for

¶1271

the lease of any such property for a term
exceeding 30 years, without the previous

¶1272

Page 183 of 273

¶1273

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1274

approval of the Central Government. Section 49
of the said Act mandates the TAMP to frame the
scale of rates on the payment of which any
property belonging to or in possession of the
Board, or any place within the limits of the
port or the port approaches may be used for the
purposes mentioned therein. Section 49 being
relevant is reproduced as under:-

¶1275

"49. Scale of rates and statement of
conditions for use of property belonging to
Board

¶1276

(1)The Authority shall from time to time,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
also frame a scale of rates on payment of
which, and a statement of conditions under
which, any property belonging to, or in the
possession or occupation of, the Board, or
any place within the limits of the port or
the port approaches may be used for the
purposes specified hereunder:-

¶1277

(a) approaching or lying at or alongside any
buoy, mooring, wharf, quay, pier, dock,
land, building or place as aforesaid by
vessels;

¶1278

(b) entering upon or plying for hire at or
on any wharf, quay, pier, dock, land,
building, road, bridge or place as aforesaid
by animals or vehicles carrying passengers
or goods;

¶1279

(c)leasing of land or sheds by owners of
goods imported or intended for export or by
steamer agents;

¶1280

(d) any other use of any land, building,

¶1281

Page 184 of 273

¶1282

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1283

works, vessels or appliances belonging to or
provided by the Board.

¶1284

(2) Different scales and conditions may be
framed for different classes of goods and
vessels.

¶1285

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), the Board may, by auction
or by inviting tenders, lease any land or
shed belonging to it or in its possession or
occupation at a rate higher than that
provided under subsection (1)."

¶1286

28.Section 111 empowers the Central

¶1287

Government to issue directions to the Board of

¶1288

Trustees, the same reads as under:-

¶1289

"111. Power of Central Government to issue
directions to Board.-

¶1290

(1) Without prejudice to the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, the Authority
and every Board shall, in the discharge of
its functions under this Act be bound by
such directions on questions of policy as
the Central Government may give in writing
from time to time:

¶1291

Provided that the Authority or the Board, as
the case may be, shall be given opportunity
to express its views before any direction is
given under this subsection.

¶1292

(2) The decision of the Central Government
whether a question is one of policy or not
shall be final."

¶1293

The Ministry of Shipping, Government of

¶1294

India, considering the importance of the lands

¶1295

Page 185 of 273

¶1296

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1297

belonging to the Port Trusts and considering the
provisions contained in Section 34 of the said
Act, had issued the Land Policy for Major Ports
in 2004 in exercise of the powers conferred

¶1298

under Section 111 of the said Act. Thereafter
the Government of India, in supersession of the
said Land Policy of 2004, issued Land Policy for
Major Ports – 2010 for implementation by all
Major Ports and Ennore Port Limited. Thereafter

¶1299

the Government of India had issued the Policy
Guidelines for the land management by Major

¶1300

Ports 2014. However, the Indian Port

¶1301

Association, an Apex Body of Major Ports having
highlighted certain difficulties and suggested
some changes, the Ministry had constituted a
Two-Member Committee to examine the suggestions
and furnish a report. Based on the report, the

¶1302

revised guidelines were framed and issued under
Section 111 of the said Act, vide communication

¶1303

dated 17.7.2015. The said Policies inter alia
contained the directions/guidelines to be
followed by the Port Trusts with regard to the

¶1304

Land Use Plan, Land Allotment Policy, Renewal of
Existing Leases, determination of market value

¶1305

Page 186 of 273

¶1306

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1307

of port land and the scale of rates etc. Since
the impugned orders have been passed by the TAMP
considering the Land Policies of 2010 and 2014
issued in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 111 of the said Act, some of the
relevant Clauses of the said Policies are

¶1308

reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

¶1309

I – Clause regarding Land Use Plan under

¶1310

2010 Policy :

¶1311

5. Land Use Plan

¶1312

Every Major Port shall have a Land use plan
covering the entire land owned and/or
managed by the Port. Such plans shall be
approved by the Board and a copy should be
forwarded to the Government. Any proposal
for revision of land use plan shall be
published on the web-site of the Port Trust
inviting objections and suggestions and
shall be finalized by the Board after
considering the objections and suggestions
received.

¶1313

II – Clause regarding Land Use Plan under

¶1314

2014 Policy :

¶1315

8. Land Use Plan:

¶1316

The Land Policy Guidelines are applicable
for all purposes under MPT Act 1963. Every
Major Port shall have a Land use plan
covering all the land owned and/or managed
by the Port. Such plans shall be approved by

¶1317

Page 187 of 273

¶1318

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1319

the Board and a copy would be forwarded to
the Government. Any proposal for revision of
land use plan shall be finalized by the
Board only after considering the objections
and suggestions received from the various
stakeholders. Land use plan of major ports
shall be reviewed by the Board at least once
in every five years.

¶1320

III- Renewal clause under the Policy of

¶1321

2010 :

¶1322

"6.1.2Renewal of existing leases: The
following procedure will be adopted for
renewal of leases of land inside the custom
bound area. Such leases may have been given
by some ports much before the guidelines
issued in 2004 came into force. The said
guidelines prohibit the allotment of land in
custom bound area on lease basis:

¶1323

a)If there is no option for renewal in
the existing lease agreement, guidelines
governing fresh allotment shall apply.
However, the right of refusal may be given
to the present lessee subject to the
condition that he is a bonafide lessee
without any default. The renewal shall be
subject to payment of rent at the prevailing
SoR or the market value, whichever is
higher.

¶1324

b)If the renewal option is there in the
lease agreement, the port should assess if
the land is required by the port for its own
use. In case it is not required by it, the
port should then assess whether it is
required for the purpose for which it was
originally leased. If it is so required, it
should be renewed for as short a period as
possible and preferably in accordance with
the SoR or the Market value, whichever is
higher. Any concession shall be given only
with the approval of the Board."

¶1325

Page 188 of 273

¶1326

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1327

IV – Renewal Clause under the Policy of
2014:

¶1328

11.3 Renewal of Existing/Earlier Leases :

¶1329

(a)In cases of renewal of existing/earlier
leases with or without renewal option, the
Port should verify if the land is required
for its own use. If it is so required, the
Port shall take possession of the land on
expiry of lease.

¶1330

(b)If the land is not required by the Port
for its own use, the Port should then check
whether the land use is consistent with the
land use plan and whether the lessees are
not in default. Thereafter, if it is so, the
following procedure will be adopted for
renewal of lease of land outside the custom
bond area.

¶1331

(c)During the process of renewal of
existing/earlier leases, the Port is
required to differentiate between those
lease-agreements that provide for renewal
and those that do not provide for such
renewal at the end of the lease-period. In
cases of renewal of existing leases, without
renewal option at the end of the lease-term,
the land will be put to tender-cum-auction
with the first right of refusal to be
extended to the existing lessee. The
existing lessee should be allowed to match
the H-1 bid. If any structure has been
constructed by the earlier lessee on the
leased land, it would be valued by a third
party valuer to be agreed upon by the Pot
Trust and the earlier lessee and the
successful bidder has to remit the value of
the structures which which would be passed
on to the previous lessee. The bidding and
auction would be only on the reserve price
of the land. With a view to dissuade non-
serious bids, EMD for a vlid bid should be
fixed at 10% of the latest SoR of the land
being put on tender. If the only bidder is
the existing lessee, the annual lease rental

¶1332

Page 189 of 273

¶1333

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1334

would be determined on the basis of the
latest SoR notified as per Para 13(c) or the
price quoted by the existing lessee in the
tender-cum-auction, whichever is higher. The
provision of first right will also apply to
expired lease (possession has been taken by
the Port) also in addition to existing
leases.

¶1335

(d)In respect of lease agreements with
renewal option, the lease can be renewed by
the Port Trust Board by treating it as a
fresh lease at the latest SoR notified as
per para 13(c).

¶1336

(e)No renewal clause is to be provided in
the lease-agreements entered into after
coming into effect of these guidelines.

¶1337

(f)Any renewal of lease to the original
party over and above the existing period is
to be approved by the Board, provided that
the cumulative lease period does not exceed
30 years.

¶1338

(g)Any extension beyond 30 years and for a
maximum period of 99 years has to be
recommended by the Port Trust Board and the
same will be examined and scrutinized by the
Empowered Committee which would satisfy
itself regarding the justification for such
extension and competitiveness of the rate at
which such extension is to be granted.
Thereafter, approval will be granted by the
Government.

¶1339

(h)After the expiry/termination of lease
and despite receiving the notice thereof, or
forfeiture of lease on account of change of
use, assignment etc., if the lessee
continues to occupy it unauthorizedly, the
lessee shall be liable to pay compensation
for wrongful use and occupation at three (3)
times the annual lease rent based on the
latest SoR, till vacant possession is
obtained by the Port. In cases of land
allotted on upfront basis, the equivalent

¶1340

Page 190 of 273

¶1341

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1342

annual lease rent would be calculated on
pro-rata basis.

¶1343

(i)For existing leases, at the time of
expiry/termination of lease, the lessee
shall remove all structures at his own cost
under the following conditions:

¶1344

(a)Within three (3) months of
expiry/termination, if Port decides not
to re-auction that land; or,

¶1345

(b)Three months after tender-cum-
auction, if the existing lessee was not
successful.

¶1346

Beyond this period, the lessee shall be
liable to pay compensation for wrongful
use and occupation at three (3) times
the annual lease rent, till vacant
possession is obtained. In cases of
land allotted on upfront basis, the
equivalent annual lease rent would be
calculated on pro-rata basis. If the
Port so decides, for reasons to be
recorded and approved by the Port Trust
Board, it may also take over the
structures after third party valuation
of the assets with the concurrence of
the lease holder. In case removal of
structures is to be carried out by the
Port, it would be at the cost of the
lessee.

¶1347

(j)The process of renewal of existing
leases should be initiated by the respective
Ports well in advance, before the term of
lease expires. The automatic renewal of
existing leases should be preferably done
within three months of receipt of such
application for renewal. Liability to pay
compensation for wrongful use by the lessee
will not arise, if the delay in renewing
such leases is wholly attributable to the
Port.

¶1348

(k)In respect of old leases, where the

¶1349

Page 191 of 273

¶1350

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1351

terms of lease stipulate automatic renewal
at pre-determined rates, such cases are to
be reviewed by the Board on a case to case
basis from the point of view of the
reasonability of such terms of renewal,
including the rates. In such cases, the
endeavour should be to migrate to lease
rentals based on latest market value."

¶1352

V– Determination of Market Value under 2010 Policy :

¶1353

"6.3(1) Market value of land and Schedule of
Rates (SoR):

¶1354

(a)SoR for land, will be recommended to
the competent authority/TAMP, by a Committee
as decided by the Board headed by the
Chairman of the Port Trust. The Committee
may take into account the applicable factors
from among those listed below to determine
the market value of port land:-

¶1355

(i)Sate Government's ready reckoner
of the land values in the area, if
available.

¶1356

(ii)Average rate of actual relevant
transactions registered in last three
years in the port's vicinity, adding 2%
escalation per annum and in case of
Mumbai Port Trust @ 4% escalation per
annum, as may be necessary.

¶1357

(iii)Highest accepted tender of
Port land for similar transactions.

¶1358

(iv)Rate arrived at by an approved
valuer appointed for the purpose by the
Port.

¶1359

(v)Any other relevant factor as may
be identified by the Port.

¶1360

(b)SoR shall be arrived at, taking 6% of
market value as rent per annum.

¶1361

Page 192 of 273

¶1362

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1363

(c)SoR shall be escalated by 2% per annum
and in case of Mumbai Port Trust @ 4%
escalation per annum, till such time that
SoR is revised with the approval of the
competent authority/TAMP.

¶1364

(d)SoR will be revised every five years.

¶1365

(e)SoR should vary in accordance with the
purpose of land use. The Committee should
recommend to the competent authority,
varying SoR in accordance with the end use
as reflected in the Land Sue Plan.

¶1366

(f)Insofar as fixing of SoR for Port land
is concerned, TAMP shall have the
jurisdiction for any land both within the
customs bound area and outside it as long as
the land is used exclusively for Port
related activity. The SoR for all land of
Major Ports will be fixed by TAMP.

¶1367

VI – Determination of Market Value under 2014 Policy:

¶1368

" 13. Market Value of land and SoR :

¶1369

(a) Land Allotment Committee may normally
take into account the highest of the factors
mentioned herein below to determine the
latest market value of Port land. In case
the land allotment committee is not choosing
the highest fact, the reasons for the same
have to be recorded in writing.

¶1370

(i)State Government's ready reckoner
of land values in the area, if
availableforsimilar
classification/activities.

¶1371

(ii)Highest rate of actual relevant
transactions registered in last three
years in the Port's vicinity (the
vicinity of the Port is to be decided
by the respective Port Trust Boards),

¶1372

Page 193 of 273

¶1373

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1374

with an appropriate annual escalation
rate to be approved by the Port Trust
Board.

¶1375

(iii)Highest accepted tender-cum-
auction rate of Port land for similar
transactions, updated on the basis of
the annual escalation rate approved by
the Port Trust Board.

¶1376

(iv)Rate arrived at by an approved
valuer appointed for the purpose by the
Port.

¶1377

(v)Any other relevant factor as may
be identified by the Port.

¶1378

(b)The Land Allotment Committee shall,
while recommending the latest Market Value
for any land would normally take into
account the highest of the factors mentioned
in Para 13(a) above. Reserve Price in terms
of the annual lease rent would be latest SoR
determined in accordance with Para 13(a) and
13(c) and would in no case be less than 6%
of the latest market value recommended by
the Port Trust.

¶1379

(c) The Port Trust would make a proposal as
outlined in para 13(a) to TAMP for fixing
the latest SoR of the land. The TAMP would
notify the latest SoR of the land after
following due process of consultation with
stake holders within 45 days of receipt of
the proposal. The Port Trust Board will fix
a rate of annual escalation which would not
be less than 2%. SoR would be refixed once
in every 5 years by TAMP."

¶1380

30.The crux of the challenges made in all
the petitions is the order of 2011 and order of

¶1381

2014, passed by the TAMP in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 49 of the said

¶1382

Page 194 of 273

¶1383

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1384

Act, in the light of the Land Policies as

¶1385

applicable at the relevant time issued by the
Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, under

¶1386

Section 111 of the said Act. Some of the

¶1387

petitioners have challenged the TAMP order of
2011, some have challenged the TAMP order of
2014, and some have challenged both the orders.

¶1388

Some of the petitioners have incidentally
challenged the Land Policy of 2010 and the Land
Policy of 2014, and have also challenged the
demand notices and the compensatory bills issued

¶1389

by the respondent KPT alleging unauthorized
occupation of the concerned petitioners. As
stated herein above, the impugned orders and
subsequent actions taken thereunder, as well as
the validity of land policies have been
challenged on multiple issues. Having regard to

¶1390

the submissions made by the learned Advocates
for the parties in the light of the provisions

¶1391

of the said Act and of the Land Policies of 2010
and 2014, following broad issues arise for
determination before this Court -

¶1392

(a)Whether the Land Policies issued by the

¶1393

Page 195 of 273

¶1394

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1395

Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, in
the year 2010 and in the year 2014 are legal and
valid ?

¶1396

(b)Whether the order dated 25.3.2011

¶1397

passed by the TAMP framing SoR for the three
consecutive slabs from July 1999 to 31st
December 2003, 1st January 2004 to 31st December
2008 and 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013
based on the proposal of the KPT dated 19.4.2010
is legal and valid ?

¶1398

(c)Whether the order dated 13.1.2014

¶1399

passed by the TAMP framing SoR for the period

¶1400

from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018 based on the

¶1401

proposal of KPT dated 26.6.2014 is legal and
valid ?

¶1402

(d)Whether the concerned petitioners are
entitled to claim renewal of their respective
leases ?

¶1403

Re:Land Policies of 2010 and 2014:-

¶1404

31.As regards challenge to the Land Policy
of 2010 and the Land Policy of 2014, it may be

¶1405

Page 196 of 273

¶1406

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1407

stated that the petitioners PSL, Kesar Terminals
and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Tankers'
Association and AVEAN have sought prayer to set
aside the same in their respective petitions.

¶1408

The learned Advocates appearing for the said
petitioners have assailed the said policies
mainly by submitting that the said Land Policies
unjustifiably granted unfettered powers to the
respondent KPT to choose any of the methods, or
criteria for the fixation of scale of rates
amongst the many mentioned therein. According to
them, such powers would give enough flexibility
to the KPT to raise scale of rates on factors
that would prejudice the lease holders like the
petitioners, and to that extent the said
Policies of 2010 and of 2014 are bad, arbitrary
and illegal due to its ambiguity. Adverting to
the said submissions, it may be stated that such
Policies/Guidelines are issued by the Government

¶1409

of India, in exercise of its powers under
Section 111 of the said Act, and therefore, have
statutory force. As transpiring from the
preamble of the Policy of 2010, considering the
importance of sustaining the growth and

¶1410

Page 197 of 273

¶1411

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1412

development of the Major Ports for their
contribution to the Indian economy, and to
promote the business with the Port Trusts, the
Land Policy for the Major Port of 2010 was
issued by the Government of India, after
considering the report submitted by the
Committee specially constituted to review a host
of policies including the Land Policy issued in
2004, and after deliberating upon the said
report, the Ministry of Shipping had put up the
draft line policy on the website of Ministry

¶1413

inviting comments and suggestions. After
considering large number of responses received
by the Ministry said Policy of 2010 was issued

¶1414

to all the Port Trusts for the implementation.

¶1415

Similarly, the policy guidelines for land
management by Major Ports of 2014 was issued by

¶1416

the Ministry of Shipping after considering the
comments and suggestions of various stakeholders

¶1417

and also after undergoing the inter ministerial
consultations. Initially the said guidelines
were approved by the Union Cabinet on 2.1.2014

¶1418

and were issued to all Major Ports for
implementation, however, the Indian Ports

¶1419

Page 198 of 273

¶1420

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1421

Association, an Apex Body for Major Ports having
highlighted certain difficulties and suggested
some changes, the Ministry had constituted a
Two-Member Committee vide the order dated

¶1422

8.8.2014 to examine the said suggestions and
furnish the report. Based on the said report,
the revised guidelines were framed and issued
under Section 111 of the said Act, effective
from 17.7.2015.

¶1423

32.Both the policies have been issued by

¶1424

the Ministry of Shipping after undergoing
systematic process of consultation and after
considering the objections/suggestions of the
stakeholders. In both the Policies detailed
guidelines have been prescribed with regard to
the fresh allotment of land, renewal of existing
land leases, for determination of market value
of lands and scale of rates, apart from general
guidelines applicable to the existing and new
leases. Merely because the land allotment
Committee constituted as per the said guidelines
has been empowered to take into account the
highest of the applicable factors mentioned in

¶1425

Page 199 of 273

¶1426

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1427

the relevant clauses, to determine the latest
market value of the port land, the entire policy
could not be termed as ambiguous, arbitrary or
illegal. It is also pertinent to note that based

¶1428

on the recommendations of the Land Allotment
Committee, the Port Trust is required to make
proposal to the TAMP for fixing the SoR and the
TAMP is required to notify the latest SoR of the
land after following the due process of
consultation with the stakeholders, as stated in
Clause 6.3 and Clause 13 of the Policies of 2010
and 2014 respectively. None of the Advocates for
the petitioners was in a position to point out

¶1429

any element of arbitrariness in the said
clauses, which would require the Court to

¶1430

declare the said policies as arbitrary or bad in
law.

¶1431

33.Even otherwise, as per the settled

¶1432

legal position, normally the Courts should not
interfere with the Policy decisions of the

¶1433

Government. The Government is entitled to change
its policies with the changing circumstances and
to exercise discretion to alter the earlier

¶1434

Page 200 of 273

¶1435

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1436

policies to make them more effective. The only
qualifying condition is that such policy should
be free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias,
and malice, and must be in conformity with the
principleofWednesburyreasonableness.
Beneficial reference of the decision in case of
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. West
Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2010(6)
SCC 303, and in case of APM Terminals B. V. Vs.

¶1437

Union of India and Anr., reported in (2011) 6
SCC 756 and others. In that view of the matter,
the Court is of the opinion that there being no
element of arbitrariness involved and there
being no legal infirmity in the policies in

¶1438

question, the prayer of the concerned
petitioners to declare the said policies as

¶1439

arbitrary or bad in law, deserve to be rejected.

¶1440

Re: Challenge to TAMP Orders of 2011 and 2014:

¶1441

34.So far as the TAMP order of 2011 is
concerned, it appears that the KPT vide the

¶1442

letter dated 19.4.2010 had submitted its

¶1443

proposal for revision of the rate structure for

¶1444

Page 201 of 273

¶1445

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1446

its Kandla Land along with the valuation report
prepared by an approved Land Valuer. Till then,
the rates for Kandla Land of KPT as approved by
the Government of India in July 1994 under six
categories were prevailing. As transpiring from
the said order of 2011, it was stated inter alia
in the proposal dated 19.4.2010 that a Committee
was constituted for fixing the market value of
the land and schedule of rates as per Clause
5.3(1) of the Land Policy Guidelines 2004 issued
by the Government of India. The said Committee

¶1447

was headed by the Chairman, KPT and other
members were the Deputy Chairman, Chief
Engineer, FA & CAO and Secretary of the Port and
the Deputy Collector, Anjar. The said Committee
had appointed approved Land Valuer as per the
Policy Guidelines for assessing the market value

¶1448

of the landed estate. The said Committee after

¶1449

going through the various aspects and
considering the parameters given in the Land
Policy Guidelines had accepted the market value
of the land assessed by the approved Valuer. The

¶1450

Committeethereafterrecommendedsector-

¶1451

wise/sub-sector-wise lease rentals for three

¶1452

Page 202 of 273

¶1453

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1454

consecutive slabs i.e. July 1999 to 31st
December, 2003, 1st January 2004 to 31st December
2008 and 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013
for the categories A to G. The Board of Trustees

¶1455

of KPT had also recommended the said market
rate/schedule of rates and lease rentals as
recommended by the Committee and forwarded the
same to the TAMP for its approval. As stated by
the TAMP in its order, the TAMP in accordance
with the consultative procedure prescribed, had
forwarded the proposal of the KPT to the
concerned user associations for their comments.
The comments of user association as and when

¶1456

received were forwarded to the KPT for its
remarks and the KPT had responded to the said
comments. The TAMP after preliminary scrutiny of
theproposalhadsoughtadditional

¶1457

information/clarification from the KPT, which
were furnished by the KPT, the details of which
have been narrated in the Tabular Form in the
TAMP order of 2011. It appears that a joint
hearing of the KPT and concerned users was held
by the TAMP. Subsequent to the meeting, the
Kandla Liquid Tank Terminal Association (KLTAA)

¶1458

Page 203 of 273

¶1459

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1460

submitted their comments on the KPT's proposal
and the KPT also furnished its remarks. On

¶1461

4.12.2010, KPT furnished a copy of the gist of
discussion held by it with the representatives
of various Port users in connection with the
revision of rate structure of Kandla Land. The
TAMP considering the said information/material
collected during the proceedings and considering
the comments/submissions made by the users and
the deliberations, which took place at the joint
hearing, passed the order of 2011, according
approval for the proposal of the KPT with regard
to the revision of rate structure as per the
Annexure annexed to the said order. The said
lease rates approved by the TAMP are reproduced
in Tabular Form as under:-

¶1462

Lease rate for lease of Kandla lands belonging
to Kandla Port Trust:-

¶1463

`Sr.` `No.`	`Description of` `category`	`Lease` `Rentals` `per sq.` `mtr., per` `annum as` `on July` `1999` `(Rs.)`	`Lease` `Rentals` `per sq.` `mtr., per` `annum as` `on` `1.1.2004` `(Rs.)`	`Lease` `Rentals per` `sq. mtr.,` `per annum as` `on 1.1.2009` `(Rs.)`
`A`	`Land having water` `front and upto` `half mile from the` `shore i.e. the`	`41.40`	`53.40`	`110.40`

¶1464

Page 204 of 273

¶1465

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1466

	`west bank of` `Kandla creek`
`B`	`Land within half` `mile from the bank` `of the creek and` `having no water` `front`
`B1`	`Plots abutting on` `main road`	`33.60`	`43.20`	`89.40`
`B2`	`Plots situated on` `internal roads`	`30.00`	`39.00`	`80.40`
`C`	`Land beyond half a` `mile from the bank` `of the creek`
`C1`	`Plots abutting on` `main road`	`30.00`	`39.00`	`80.40`
`C2`	`Other plots`	`24.60`	`31.20`	`64.80`
`D`	`Land outside the` `bunder area and` `outside the west` `gate both on north` `as well as on the` `south of National` `Highway`
`D1`	`Plots directly` `abutting on NH-8A`	`37.80`	`48.60`	`100.20`
`D2`	`Plots abutting on` `1`^st`30 meter road` `parallel to NH-8A`	`33.60`	`43.20`	`89.40`
`D3`	`Plots abutting on` `2`^nd`30 meter road` `parallel to NH-8A`	`32.40`	`41.40`	`85.20`
`E`	`Land within the` `docks`	`67.80`	`87.60`	`180.60`
`F`	`Land west of` `railway siding` `leading to Kandla` `Free Trade Zone` `and up to crossing` `of railway line`
`F1`	`Plots situated on` `SEZ side from` `Kandla Railway` `Station`	`37.80`	`48.60`	`100.20`
`F2`	`Plots situated on` `Ahmedabad side` `from Kandla` `Railway Station`	`36.00`	`46.20`	`94.80`

¶1467

Page 205 of 273

¶1468

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1469

`G`	`Land of Liquid` `Storage Tanks` `situated at Old`	`167.40`	`214.80`	`442.80`
	`Kandla; between` `railway siding and` `leading to` `M/s.IFFCO and` `M/s.IOCL (LPG)`

¶1470

So far as TAMP order of 2014 is concerned,

¶1471

the KPT vide its letter dated 26.6.2014 had made
a comprehensive proposal to the TAMP for the
revision of rates for Kandla Land for the
categories A to F and G for approval. As
transpiring from the said order of 2014, it was
stated in the said proposal inter alia that the
Land Policy Guidelines of 2014 so issued by the
Ministry of Shipping have been adopted by the
KPT on 23.1.2014. As mandated, the Land
ValuationCommitteewasappointedfor

¶1472

undertaking the revision of rate structure of
Kandla Land from January 2014 to December 2018.
The said Committee was headed by the Deputy

¶1473

Chairman as the Chairman of the Committee, the
Secretary, the Chief Engineer and Traffic
Manager amongst other members. As per the
directions of the said Committee a Government

¶1474

Page 206 of 273

¶1475

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1476

approved Valuer was engaged by the KPT in
February 2014, the report of approved Valuer was
submitted to the Committee. The Committee after
considering the said report had recommended
valuation of the land as per the categories A to
G mentioned therein. Based on the recommendation
of the Land Valuer Committee, the Board of
Trustees of the KPT had approved the proposal
for revision in the lease rentals of KPT lands,
fixing reserve price for market value of the
land w.e.f. 1.1.2014 for categories A to G in
its meeting held on 10.6.2014, and the KPT
accordingly had sought approval of TAMP vide its
letter dated 26.6.2014.

¶1477

36.As stated by the TAMP in its order, the

¶1478

TAMP in accordance with the consultative process
prescribed, had circulated the proposal of the
KPT to the concerned users/user associations

¶1479

seeking their comments. The comments received
were forwarded to the KPT for remarks. Based on

¶1480

the preliminary scrutiny of the proposal, the
TAMP had also requested the KPT to furnish
additional information/clarifications on few

¶1481

Page 207 of 273

¶1482

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1483

points, which were furnished by the KPT. The
said queries and remarks of KPT have been made

¶1484

part of the order by the TAMP. It also appears
that a joint hearing was held on 4.8.2014 at the

¶1485

KPT premises where the KPT had made power-point
presentation of its proposal and thereafter the
KPT of the concerned user had made their
submissions. The KPT thereafter was requested to
furnish comments on the written statements made

¶1486

by BPCL, HPCL, GCCI, IFFCO, and KPKS. The KPT
also subsequently requested to furnish comments

¶1487

received from Kandla Liquid Tank Terminal
Association vide its letter dated 3.9.2014,
which was responded by the KPT vide its letter

¶1488

dated 12.9.2014. The TAMP considering the
totality of information/material collected
during the hearing of the case, passed a

¶1489

detailed order on 4.12.2014 approving the
schedule of market value of the land and Reserve

¶1490

price in terms of the lease rents for lease of

¶1491

Kandla lands belonging to KPT as per the
Annexure-II annexed to the said order. The TAMP
approved the schedule of rate structure making
it effective from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018. The

¶1492

Page 208 of 273

¶1493

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1494

said Schedule of rates in Tabular Form is

¶1495

reproduced as under:-

¶1496

Schedule of Market Value of land and reserve
price for Kandla land of Kandla Port Trust:-

¶1497

`Sr.` `No.`	`Description of category`	`Market` `Value of` `land on` `1.1.2014`	`Reserve price` `in terms of` `lease rent @` `6% of market` `value of land` `w.e.f.` `1.1.2014`
`A`	`Land having water front and` `upto half mile from the` `shore i.e. the west bank of` `Kandla creek`	`3942.00`	`236.52`
`B`	`Land within half mile from` `the bank of the creek and` `having no water front`
`B1`	`Plots abutting on main road`	`3192.00`	`191.52`
`B2`	`Plots situated on internal` `roads`	`2873.00`	`172.38`
`C`	`Land beyond half a mile` `from the bank of the creek`
`C1`	`Plots abutting on main road`	`1800.00`	`108.00`
`C2`	`Other plots`	`1500.00`	`90.00`
`D`	`Land outside the bunder` `area and outside the west` `gate both on north as well` `as on the south of National` `Highway`
`D1`	`Plots directly abutting on` `NH-8A`	`3298.00`	`197.88`
`D2`	`Plots abutting on 1`^st`30` `meter road parallel to NH-` `8A`	`2153.00`	`129.18`
`D3`	`Plots abutting on 2`^nd`30` `meter road parallel to NH-` `8A`	`3098.00`	`185.34`
`D4`	`Plots abutting to KK road` `near zero point and railway` `crossing, 25 acres plots` `and other plots`	`2131.00`	`127.86`
`D5`	`Valuation of land to the`	`2565.00`	`153.90`

¶1498

Page 209 of 273

¶1499

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1500

	`West Gate of NH-8A towards` `salt works of land without` `reclamation but with` `infrastructure`
`E`	`Land within the docks`	`5836.00`	`350.16`
`F`	`Land west of railway siding` `leading to Kandla Free` `Trade Zone and up to` `crossing of railway line`
`F1`	`Plots situated on SEZ side` `from Kandla Railway Station`	`3430.00`	`205.80`
`F2`	`Plots situated on Ahmedabad` `side from Kandla Railway` `Station`	`6720.00`	`403.20`
`G`	`Land of Liquid Storage` `Tanks`
`G1`	`Land situated from Eastern` `Bank of Kandla Creek to` `Western Bank of Nakti Creek`	`15086.13`	`905.17`
`G2`	`Land from West side of` `Nakti Creek to Kharirohar` `having existing Oil` `Terminals of IOCL, HPCL and` `BPCL`	`9959.89`	`597.59`

¶1501

The aforesaid orders of 2011 and 2014 of the TAMP have been assailed by the learned Advocates for the petitioners on various grounds. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the determination of market value as proposed by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP was arbitrary and dehors the Land Policy Guidelines issued by the Government. The same have been assailed also on the ground that the KPT could not have proposed the categorization/re-categorization of the

¶1502

Page 210 of 273

¶1503

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1504

lands on the basis of use, and the TAMP should
not have accepted the same in toto for the
purpose of fixing the scale of rates under
Section 49 of the said Act. The challenge is
also made to the said orders of TAMP on the
ground that the TAMP had accepted the proposal
of KPT to give retrospective effect to the SoR
without any application of mind, inasmuch as the
SoR fixed in the order dated 25.3.2011 have been
made applicable w.e.f. January 1997 and the SoR
fixed in the order dated 13.11.2014 have been
made applicable w.e.f. January 2014.

¶1505

Re: Categorization:-

¶1506

38.Now, Chapter-VA was inserted by the
Amendment Act of 1997 in the said Act for

¶1507

constitution and incorporation of Tariff
authority for major ports. Prior thereto, the
scale of rates and statement of conditions for
use of the properties belonging to the Board
were being determined by the Board itself, with
the prior sanction of the Central Government as

¶1508

required under Section 52 of the said Act. After
the Amendment Act 15 of 1997 the Tariff

¶1509

Page 211 of 273

¶1510

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1511

authority has been constituted under Section 47A
of the said Act. The said authority comprises of

¶1512

the members to be appointed by the Central
Government i.e. the Chairman from amongst

¶1513

persons, who is or who has been a Secretary to
the Government of India, a member from amongst
economists having experience of not less than

¶1514

fifteen years in the field of transport or
foreign trade, from amongst persons having

¶1515

experience of not less than fifteen years in the
field of finance. Section 49 empowers the TAMP

¶1516

to frame a scale of rates of payment of which,
and a statement of conditions under which, any

¶1517

property belonging to, or in the possession or
occupation of, the Board or any place within the

¶1518

limits of the port or the port approaches may be
used for the purposes specified thereunder. One

¶1519

of the purposes mentioned therein is leasing of
land or sheds by owners of goods imported or
intended for export or by steamer agents, and
any other use of any land, building, works,

¶1520

vessels or appliances belonging to or provided

¶1521

by the Board. Sub-section (2) of Section 49
provides that different scales and conditions

¶1522

Page 212 of 273

¶1523

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1524

may be framed for different classes of goods and
vessels. It is pertinent to note that Section
111 of the said Act mandates that the authority
and every Board shall in discharge of its
functions under the Act be bound by such
directions on the question of policy as the
State Government may give in writing from time
to time.

¶1525

39.At this juncture, again reference of
the Policies of 2010 and 2014 issued by the
Government of India in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 111 of the said Act
deserves to be made. Clause-5 of 2010 Policy and
Clause-8 of 2014 Policy inter alia provided that
every major port shall have a land use plan
covering the entire land owned and/or managed by
the Port. Such plans have to be approved by the
Board and a copy thereof has to be forwarded to
the Government. Thus, the combined reading of
the provisions contained in Section 49 of the
Act and the said Clauses of the land policies,
it emerges that use of the land and the purposes
for which the land of the port would be used are

¶1526

Page 213 of 273

¶1527

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1528

the material considerations for the purposes of
fixing scale of rates. It may be further noted
that the market value of the land and the scale
of rates to be recommended by the Port Trust to

¶1529

the TAMP have to be in consonance with the
relevant directions given by the Central
Government in the respective land policies.
Clause 6.3(1)(e) of the Policy of 2010 provided
that SoR should vary in accordance with the end

¶1530

use as reflected in the land use plan. Sub-
clause (f) of the said Clause further provided
that insofar as fixing of SoR for port land is
concerned, the TAMP shall have the jurisdiction
for any land both within the customs bound area

¶1531

and outside it as long as the land is used
exclusively for Port related activity. The SoR
for all the land of Major Ports will be fixed by
TAMP.

¶1532

40.Thus, it is absolutely clear that the
SoR could vary in accordance with the purpose of

¶1533

land use and that the same has to be in
accordance with the end use as reflected in the
land use plan. Ergo, the Court does not find any

¶1534

Page 214 of 273

¶1535

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1536

substance in the submissions made by the learned
Advocates for the petitioners that the KPT had
no authority to categorize the lands while
proposing scale of rates to the TAMP and the

¶1537

TAMP also could not have approved such

¶1538

categorization made on the basis of use of land
or the purpose for which the lands were to be

¶1539

used. As such, the petitioner IMC Limited in
SCA No.2535 of 2017 has sated that the TAMP
having directed the KPT to classify the land
taking into account the distance from the creek

¶1540

and the purpose for which the land was allotted,
the lands owned by the KPT were classified into
five categories. It may further be noted that at
the relevant time, no objections were raised by
anyofthepetitionersagainstsuch
classification/categorization of the lands by

¶1541

the KPT. Thereafter while making proposal vide

¶1542

the letter dated 19.4.2010 to the TAMP, the KPT
had proposed the rates, on the basis of the
report of the Committee specially constituted
for fixing the market value of the land and
schedule of rates, by categorizing the lands
into A to G categories. On the specific query

¶1543

Page 215 of 273

¶1544

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1545

raised by the TAMP, as transpiring from the
order dated 25.3.2011, for proposing lease rates

¶1546

under twelve categories in place of six
categories approved by the Government of India
in July 1994, the KPT had answered to the effect
that "the categories approved by the Government
in 1994 were very broad ones covering large
areas which did not reflect the correct land
value of the lands even within those categories.

¶1547

In order to have very realistic and specific
rates for different locations, depending upon
their approachability, accessibility, distance
from the highway/roads, the categories approved
by the Government in 1994 have been further
divided into sub-categories." The TAMP in the
impugned order dated 25.3.2011 after elaborately
discussing the procedure adopted by the KPT
before making the proposal, had accepted the
said categorization for the purpose of framing

¶1548

the scale of rates. Pertinently, the said
categorization proposed by the KPT and accepted
by the TAMP in the 2011 order was not challenged
by any of the petitioners till these petitions

¶1549

were filed in the years 2014-15 onwards.

¶1550

Page 216 of 273

¶1551

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1552

41.Similar proposal was made by the KPT
vide letter dated 23.4.2014 in the light of the
policy of 2014. The KPT had submitted the said

¶1553

proposal for the valuation of land for the
various categories of Kandla lands, i.e. A to G
categories considered by the Land Valuation
Committee. In the said proposal, the KPT had
further categorized the Category-G into sub-
categories G-1 and G-2, in respect of which the

¶1554

TAMP had raised queries and the KPT had
responded to the said queries. In this regard,
the TAMP in its impugned order dated 13.11.2014
has observed in Paragraph 11(viii)(c) as under:-

¶1555

 "11.(vii)(c)-"xxx With reference to
the objection raised by users about new
sub categorization G1 and G2 under
category G, proposed in the current
proposal as against a single category G
in the land Order, the KPT has sought
to clarify that the rates are to be
fixed considering purpose also. So, all
lessees, who have been allotted the
land for "Liquid Tanks" have been
categorized under G-1 & G-2 categories
irrespective of distance. The KPT has
reported that C1 category has now been
shifted as G-2 from 1.1.2014 as per the
valuation report submitted by the
approved valuer appointed for valuation
of Kandla Land rates for tanks
terminals This categorization has also
been recommended by the LVC and has
also been approved by the KPT Board."

¶1556

Page 217 of 273

¶1557

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1558

42.The only contention raised by the
learned Advocates for the petitioners in this
regard was that though the land policy of 2010
specifically pertained to the direction to fix
the SoR in accordance with the purpose of land
use, later Policy of 2014 omitted the said
direction in Clause 13 thereof.

¶1559

Though, prima facie some substance may be found in the said submission made by the learned Advocates for the petitioners, on close reading of 2014 Policy, it transpires that the said policy of 2014 has not adopted the same language as used in 2010 Policy,but has reiterated the principle by enumerating the factors to be taken into consideration for valuation of the Port Land. The Port Board was required to consider the land use plan covering all the lands owned and/or managed by the Port while forwarding the proposal for revision of lease rents as recommended by the Land Allotment Committee. As per Clause 13 of the said Policy of 2014, the Land Allotment Committee had to take into

¶1560

account the highest of the factors mentioned in

¶1561

Page 218 of 273

¶1562

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1563

the said clause to determine the latest market
value of the port land, and the Committee could
also consider any other relevant factor as may
be identified by the Port. The Port Trust was
required to make the proposal as outlined in the
said Clause-13(a) to the TAMP for fixing the
latest SoR of the Land. As stated earlier, the
TAMP has to frame scale of rates under Section
49 of the said Act, considering the use of the
land and the purposes specified in the said

¶1564

Section. Thus, considering the earlier

¶1565

classification/categorization of the lands, the
further classification of category-G has been

¶1566

made considering the use of the land, more
particularly of the land allotted for Liquid
Tankers. Hence, it could not be said that such
further categorization was not in consonance
with the Land Policy or with the provisions
contained in the Act.

¶1567

Re: Framing of SOR whether arbitrary ?

¶1568

The next contention raised by the learned Advocates for the petitioners is with regard to the fixation of the market value of the port

¶1569

Page 219 of 273

¶1570

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1571

land. It has been emphatically submitted that
the said valuation of the land and the
determination of scale of rate was arbitrary and
irrational. As per the policy, the market value
of the land was to be determined on the basis of
highest accepted bid of the land, and the KPT
had based its valuation relying on the 2005
tender submitted by the petitioner IMC for the
purpose of making proposal to the TAMP, however,

¶1572

the bids received by the KPT pursuant to the
2005 tender were not finalized and the said
tender was subsequently cancelled as the payment
model under the 2005 tender was changed from

¶1573

"premium-cum-lease rent structure", which was
followed earlier to "singlelump sum

¶1574

consideration in the form of a higher premium
and token Re.1/- lease structure". Therefore,

¶1575

according to them, the said bid having not been
accepted by the KPT, it could not have been
treated as the highest accepted bid of the land
for the purpose of making proposal to the TAMP.
According to them, even under the Policy of

¶1576

2014, the use of the land being not relevant
factor, the only factor which could have been

¶1577

Page 220 of 273

¶1578

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1579

accepted was the highest accepted tender amount,
and in absence of such highest accepted tender
amount, the proposal of KPT could not have been
accepted by the TAMP for determining the market
value and in turn the SoR.

¶1580

45.Apropos the said submissions, the
question that falls for consideration before the
Court is whether the judicial review in the
matter of fixation of scale of rates by the
TAMP, based on the proposals made by the KPT
after considering the statutory guidelines
issued by the Government of India, is
permissiblewhileexercisingthewrit
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶1581

Constitution of India?

¶1582

46.The Supreme Court in case of
Association of Industrial Electricity Users Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR
2002 SC 1361, while considering the issue as to
whether the judicial review in the matter of
fixation of tariff by the Regulatory Commission
constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Electricity
Reforms Act, was permissible, had held that-

¶1583

Page 221 of 273

¶1584

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1585

"11. We also agree with the High Court that the judicial review in a matter with regard to fixation of tariff has not to be as that of an appellate authority in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. All that the High Court has to be satisfied is that the Commission has followed the proper procedure and unless it can be demonstrated that its decision is on the face of it arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the Act, the Court will not interfere. Fixing a tariff and providing for cross-subsidy is essentially a matter of policy and normally a Court would refrain from interfering with a policy decision unless the power exercised is arbitrary or ex facie bad in law .

¶1586

47.The above judgement has been followed by the
Supreme Court in case ofTransmission
Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited and
Another Vs. Sai Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd.,

¶1587

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 34, in which similar
view has been taken by the Supreme Court. It has
been held as under:-

¶1588

"39.We do not consider it appropriate to go
into the merit or demerit of determination
of tariff rates in the appeals.
Determination of tariff is a function
assigned legislatively to a competent
forum/authority. Whether it is by exercise
of legislative or subordinate legislative
power or a policy decision, if the Act so
requires, but it generally falls in the
domain of legislative activity and the
courts refrain from adverting into this
arena."

¶1589

Page 222 of 273

¶1590

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1591

48.The Supreme Court, similarly in case of West

¶1592

Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs.
CESC Limited, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715 was
dealing with the scope of judicial review in the
matter of determination of tariff by the State
Commission and applicability of principles of
natural justice. It was held inter alia that
price fixation is in the nature of a legislative
action, and no rule of natural justice is
applicable, unless statute itself provided for
the same and the power of judicial review could
hardly be invoked in interfering such fixation.

¶1593

49.In yet one more judgement in case of
Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of A.P.,
reported in 2003(1) SCC 341, the Supreme Court
while examining the scope of judicial scrutiny
in the matters of price fixation governed by the
statutory provisions, observed as under:-

¶1594

"15.This Court was examining the scope of
judicial scrutiny in the matters of price
fixation where it was governed by statutory
provisions. The scope of judicial scrutiny
would be far less where the price fixation
is not governed by the statute or a
statutory order. Where the legislature has
prescribed the factors which should be taken
into consideration and which should guide

¶1595

Page 223 of 273

¶1596

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1597

the determination of price, the courts would
examine whether the considerations for
fixing the price mentioned in the statute or
the statutory order have been kept in mind
while fixing the price and whether these
factors have guided the determination. The
courts would not go beyond that point. In
the present appeals, there is no law, or any
statutory provision laying down the criteria
or the principles which must be followed, or
which must guide the determination of rates
of royalty. No doubt, any arbitrary action
taken by the State would be subject to the
scrutiny by the courts because arbitrariness
is the very antithesis of rule of law. But
this does not mean that this Court would act
as an appellate authority over the
determination of rates of royalty by the
government."

¶1598

50.Following the afore-stated judgement, the

¶1599

Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Ors.

¶1600

Vs. Cipla Limited and Anr., reported in (2017) 5

¶1601

SCC 262 held inter laia that the fixing the
price of any commodity is not only difficult but
also a very tricky matter, where a bundle of
factors is required to be considered and
appropriate weight is required to be given to
the material and the factors. The opinion of the
expert is important, if not conclusive. No doubt

¶1602

any arbitrary action taken by the State would be
subject to the scrutiny by the Courts, because
arbitrariness is the very antithesis of rule of

¶1603

Page 224 of 273

¶1604

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1605

law, but that does not mean that the Court would
act as an appellate authority over the
determination of rates fixed by the authority.

¶1606

51.From the afore-stated legal position settled
by the Supreme Court it is absolutely clear that

¶1607

the scope of judicial review or judicial
scrutiny in the matter of fixation of tariff or
fixation of price is extremely limited more
particularly when it is governed by the statute
or statutory guidelines. The Court would refrain
from interfering with such fixation, unless it
is ex facie found to be arbitrary or irrational.

¶1608

Let us, therefore, examine whether the

¶1609

determination of market value and scale of rates
proposed by the KPT and approved by the TAMP in

¶1610

the impugned orders of 2011 and 2014 were
arbitrary and not in consonance with the
relevant land policies ?

¶1611

52.It may be noted that the framing of

¶1612

scale of rates is a statutory function of the
TAMP under Section 49 of the said Act. The TAMP

¶1613

has to frame the same in accordance with
provision contained in Section 49 as well as in

¶1614

Page 225 of 273

¶1615

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1616

accordance with the statutory directions in the

¶1617

form of policies issued by the Central
Government under Section 111 of the said Act.
The Policy of 2010 as well as the subsequent

¶1618

policy of 2014 issued under Section 111 of the
said Act had laid down the factors to be taken

¶1619

into consideration and the procedure to be
followed for the purpose of determining the
market value and the scale of rates. So far as

¶1620

the Policy of 2010 is concerned, Clause 6.3
provided that the SoR for port land will be

¶1621

recommended to the TAMP by a Committee as
decided by the Board headed by the Chairman of

¶1622

the Port Trust. The said Committee may take into
account the applicable factors from amongst the

¶1623

factors mentioned therein to determine the

¶1624

market value of the port land. One of the
factors mentioned therein was "the highest
accepted tender" of port land for similar

¶1625

transactions. The other factor was the rate
arrived at by an approved valuer appointed for
the purpose by the port. It was stated therein

¶1626

that the scale of rates shall be arrived at,
taking 6% of the market value as the rent per

¶1627

Page 226 of 273

¶1628

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1629

annum. It also provided that the SoR should vary
in accordance with the purpose of land use. In
the light of the said provisions contained in
the Policy of 2010, if the proposal made by the
KPT in its letter dated 19.4.2010, as referred
by the TAMP in its order dated 25.3.2011, is
appreciated, it transpires that the Committee
was constituted by the KPT for fixing the market
value of the land and schedule of rates as per

¶1630

the Land Policy Guidelines issued by the
Government of India. The said Committee was
headed by the Chairman and comprised of the
other members, who were the Deputy Chairman,
Chief Engineer, FA and CAO and the Secretary of
Port and the Deputy Collector. The approved Land
Valuer was also appointed for assessing the
market value of the land estate and considering

¶1631

the land valuer's report submitted in January,
2010, the said Committee had accepted the market
value of the land as assessed by the approved
valuer.TheCommitteeaccordinglyhad

¶1632

recommended sector-wise/sub-sector-wise lease

¶1633

rentals for three consecutive slabs i.e. from

¶1634

July 1999 to 31.12.2003, from 1.1.2004 to

¶1635

Page 227 of 273

¶1636

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1637

31.12.2008, and from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013. The
Board of Trustees of KPT had recommended the
said schedule of rates and the lease rentals for
approval to the TAMP.

¶1638

53.Similar exercise appears to have been

¶1639

carried out by the KPT while making proposal as
per the letter dated 26.6.2014 for revision of
rates. As mentioned in the impugned order dated
13.11.2014 passed by of the TAMP, the said
proposal was made as per the land policy
guidelines of 2014 issued by the Ministry of
Shipping. The Clause-13 of the said policy
guidelines of 2014 contained similar provisions
as contained in Clause-6 of the policy of 2010

¶1640

for the determination of land and SoR. As
mandated therein, a land valuation committee was
appointed for undertaking the revision of rate
structure of Kandla land from January 2014 to
December 2018. The said Committee was headed by
the Deputy Chairman and comprises of the other
members like Secretary, Chief Engineer and
Traffic Manager and others. The Government
approved valuer was engaged by the KPT in

¶1641

Page 228 of 273

¶1642

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1643

February 2014, who had submitted the land
valuation report recommending the land values
for each categories of lands. The said report
was accepted by the land valuation committee for
recommendation on "as is where is basis" for all
categories of lands. Based on the
recommendation of the land valuation committee,
the Board of Trustees of the KPT had approved
the proposal for revision in the lease rentals

¶1644

of KPT lands, fixing the reserve price and the
market value of the land w.e.f. 1.1.2014 for the
Categories A to G, and accordingly the KPT had
sought approval of the same from the TAMP. The
summary of the recommendations of land valuation
committee and the proposal of the KPT based on
the said recommendations has been reproduced by
the TAMP in its order dated 13.11.2014. The said
proposal of the KPT has been elaborately
discussed and considered, and after having been
satisfied, has been accepted by the TAMP.

¶1645

54.It is pertinent to note that on both
the occasion, the KPT had made its proposals on
the basis of the rates arrived by the approved

¶1646

Page 229 of 273

¶1647

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1648

valuer appointed for the purpose by the port.
The said reports of the valuers were approved by
the land valuation committee and the Board of
Trustees of KPT, as contemplated in both the
policy guidelines. The said policy guidelines do
not mandate a specific preference to any
particular method out of the methods prescribed
in the respective clauses for determination of
the market value and the SoR. Hence, the KPT was
absolutely justified in relying upon the rates
arrived at by the approved valuers on both the
occasions. As stated in the TAMP order of 2011,
the approved valuer had after considering the

¶1649

basic rates had derived the market rates for the
entire parcels of Kandla land. The valuer had

¶1650

applied on the basic rate, a generalized index
derived by giving certain weightages for factors

¶1651

like real estate market behaviour in Gujarat,
number of Industrial units established in Kutchh
district, population growth, traffic handled by
Kandla Port, GDP growth of Gujarat and of India
etc. The determination of market value is not

¶1652

only difficult but a very tricky matter, and the
opinion of expert i.e. the approved valuer is

¶1653

Page 230 of 273

¶1654

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1655

very important. It is also pertinent to note
that the petitioners and their representatives
were also given sufficient opportunity of
hearing by the TAMP during the consultative
process and the joint hearing.

¶1656

55.AT this juncture, it is pertinent to

¶1657

note that the petitioners have not placed on
record any material to show as to what was the
market value of the port land at the relevant
time. They have also failed to substantiate
their allegations that the said scale of rates
fixed or framed by the TAMP were arbitrary or
illegal. The contention raised by the learned
Advocates for the petitioners that the offer
made by the petitioner IMC pursuant to 2005
Tender could not be said to be "the highest bid
accepted" for the purpose of determining the
market value, it having been subsequently
cancelled, has no merits. Apart from the fact
that the said Tender was required to be
cancelled as the KPT could not obtain necessary
environmental permissions, the petitioner IMC
having made offer in the said tender, was

¶1658

Page 231 of 273

¶1659

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1660

estopped from contending that the offer made by
it was not the market value of the land at the

¶1661

relevant time. The approved valuer having taken
into consideration the relevant factors for

¶1662

determining the market value of the lands in
question, and his report having been approved by
the land valuation committee and by the KPT, the
TAMP was absolutely justified in relying upon
the said market value for the purpose of framing

¶1663

the scale of rates as per the provisions
contained in Section 49 of the Act and as per

¶1664

the land policies issued by the Central
Government under Section 111 of the said Act.

¶1665

There is no flaw or lapse pointed out by the
learned Advocates for the petitioners, in the
decision making process, which could be termed
as procedural impropriety, requiring the Court

¶1666

to exercise the powers of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per

¶1667

the settled legal position, it is not
permissible for the Court to go into the minute
details of the factors considered by the
statutory authority and substitute its own
decision in place of the decision taken by the

¶1668

Page 232 of 273

¶1669

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1670

authority constituted under the Act.

¶1671

56.There could not be any disagreement to
the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in case of M/s.Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons

¶1672

Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay,

¶1673

reported in (1989) 3 SCC 293 relied upon by the
learned Advocates for the petitioners to the
effect that the public body even while dealing
with its tenants must act in public interest and

¶1674

an infraction of their duty is amenable to
examination either in civil suit or in writ
jurisdiction. Every action of the State or as
instrumentality of the State, must be informed
by reason and the actions uninformed by reason

¶1675

may be questioned as arbitrary in the
proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, it has been
further observed in the said judgement that

¶1676

there is always a presumption that a
governmental action is reasonable and in public
interest. It is for the party challenging its

¶1677

validity to show that the action is

¶1678

unreasonable, arbitrary or contrary to the

¶1679

Page 233 of 273

¶1680

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1681

professed norms or not informed by reasons, and
the burden is a heavy one. It may be noted that
in the said case, the Supreme Court was
examining the frontiers of judicial review of
the action of a statutory authority i.e. the
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay in
evicting its tenant and granting the land in
question to another tenant. In this regard a
very pertinent observations with regard to the
scope of judicial review have been made in
paragraph 31, which are reproduced as under:-

¶1682

"31.... In that view of the matter even
under the scope of judicial review, it was
contended, whether it should have been given
on joint-tenancies or not, is not a matter
which could be gone into by the Court.
Reliance was placed on the observations of
Lord Justice Diplock in Council of Civil
Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil
Service, where the learned Lord Justice
classified 3 grounds subject to control of
judicialreview,namely,illegality,
irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Learned Addl. Solicitor General is right, in
our opinion, in that we cannot really
substitute a decision reached by a fair
procedure keeping the policy of the
respondent in mind by a different decision
only on the ground that the decision which
appeals to the court, is a better one.
Reliance was placed on the observations of
Lord Chancellor Lord Hailsham in Chief
Constable of the North Wales Police v.
Evans. In our opinion, it is necessary to

¶1683

Page 234 of 273

¶1684

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1685

remember that judicial review, in the words
of Lord Brightman in that case, is not
concerned with the decision, but with the
decision making process. As observed by
Prof. Dias in 'Jurisprudence' (5th Edn. at
p. 91) unless the restriction on the power
of the court is observed, the court would
under the guise of preventing the abuse of
power, be itself guilty of usurping power
which does not belong to it. It is therefore
necessary to bear in mind the ways and means
by which the court can control or supervise
the judicial action of any authority which
is subject to judicial control. In this
connection, it is necessary to refer to the
observations of Lord Justice Templeman in re
Preston v. I.R.C., and the observations of
Lord Justice May in Regina v. Chief
Constable of the Merseyside Police. It is
not within the purview of a court to
substitute a decision taken by a constituted
authority simply because the decision sought
to be substituted is a better one. Learned
Addl. Solicitor General, in our opinion, is
therefore right in contending that the
appellant should not be allowed to contend
that the decision of the Bombay Port Trust
to allot the plot to the major holder is not
one of the feasible means of achieving the
objectives of development. It was not open
to the appellant to contend that the Bombay
Port Trust could have framed a better policy
in a way in which both the goals,
development and non-eviction of existing
tenants, could have been achieved."

¶1686

There is also no merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that during the period of lease, the landlord i.e. KPT which is an instrumentality of State, could not require the petitioners to pay the rent

¶1687

Page 235 of 273

¶1688

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1689

higher than what was agreed between them. As
held by Supreme Court in case of NSSO Vs. Champa

¶1690

Properties Limited, reported in (2009) 14 SCC
451, where the contract prescribes a rent for
the period of lease, the same being agreed rent,
it is binding on the parties. If the lease
provides for revision of rents periodically and
specifies the method and manner of revision,

¶1691

such revised rent would also be the agreed rent.
It has been further observed therein that where
a statute governing tenancies and/or rents
provides for fixation of rent or increases in
rent, and such statute is applicable to the
tenancy in question, then the rent will have to
be determined in accordance with the statutory
provisions.

¶1692

58.In the instant cases also, the lease
agreements have been executed by the KPT

¶1693

pursuant to powers available under Section 34 of
the said Act. The lease deeds specifically
provided for the periodical revision of rent.
The Land Policies of 2010 and 2014 applicable to

¶1694

the instant cases provided for the fixation of

¶1695

Page 236 of 273

¶1696

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1697

scale of rates for lease once in five years. The
manner, method and liability to pay the revised
lease rentals having already been prescribed, it
does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to

¶1698

say that the KPY could not have proposed the
higher lease rentals to the TAMP for approval.

¶1699

59.It cannot be gainsaid that the KPT

¶1700

undertakes the work and discharges statutory
duties in the national and public interest. The
port lands are the national resources and wealth

¶1701

by their unique location and limited
availability. Though the KPT being an

¶1702

instrumentality of State has to act within the
framework of the constitution even in the field
of contracts ensuring fair competition and non-

¶1703

discrimination and can not be seen to be

¶1704

indulging in profiteering or rack-renting, or
indulging in whimsical or unreasonable bargains,
nonetheless, the KPT as an owner need not

¶1705

necessarily be a benevolent and good charitable
Samaritan. The need for expanding or stimulating
its own activities or other activities in the

¶1706

public interest, if arises the State need not

¶1707

Page 237 of 273

¶1708

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1709

hold its hands from seeking eviction of its

¶1710

lessees, as observed by Supreme Court in the
case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of
Trustees, Port of Mumbai, reported in (2004) 3

¶1711

SCC 214. Mr. Joshi for the KPT has rightly
submitted that the petitioners occupying the
public property can not profiteer by charging
current commercial rents from their customers,

¶1712

while paying abysmally low rents, fixed decades
back to the port. The petitioners have also
failed to discharge their primary onus of
demonstrating the valuation as being arbitrary
or illegal, whereas the KPT has been able to

¶1713

show that the market value of the lands was
determined after following the manner and method
provided under the land policies and the TAMP
had rightly relied upon the said market value
for framing the SoR under Section 49 of the said
Act. Such fixation did not suffer from vice of
arbitrariness or from procedural impropriety.

¶1714

Re: Retrospectivity:-

¶1715

60.This takes the Court to the next

¶1716

pivotal question as to whether the KPT could

¶1717

Page 238 of 273

¶1718

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1719

have proposed and the TAMP could have accepted
the said proposal of giving retrospective effect
to the SoR fixed by the TAMP i.e. making them
effective for three consecutive slabs from July
1999 to 31.12.2003, 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2008, and
1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 as per the impugned order
dated 25.3.2011. The learned Sr. Advocate
Mr.Mihir Joshi for the KPT, had sought to submit
that the liability i.e. 6% of the market value,
the methodology i.e. on the basis of the market
value, and the periodicity i.e. every five years
was already fixed and imposed, and the only
component remaining was the determination of
market value and the scale of rates by the TAMP
after considering the views of stake holders.
Therefore, according to him, the obligation to
pay at the revised rates every five years, and
not to pay as and when quantified at varying
period of time, was already existing. In any
case, he submitted that quantification of
liability subsequent to its imposition cannot be
said to be retrospective imposition as contended
by the petitioners. Relying upon the affidavit-

¶1720

in-reply filed by the KPT, he submitted that

¶1721

Page 239 of 273

¶1722

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1723

though some delay had occasioned at the instance
of KPT in forwarding the proposal to the TAMP,
the said delay was for justifiable reasons,
inasmuch as on the constitution of TAMP in the

¶1724

year 1997, the KPT had resolved to recommend
revision of rates and the same was forwarded to
the TAMP in 1997, however, the same was returned
by the TAMP vide its order dated 2.2.1999,
requiring the Board to reclassify the lands
taking into consideration the purpose for which
it was allotted. Thereafter by report dated
16.6.1999 the Land Committee of the KPT had
recommended revision of rates and the same was
taken into consideration by the Board of
Trustees in its meeting dated 2.3.2001 and
27.6.2002, however, since the area of Kutchh was
seriously affected by the cyclone in the year
1999 followed by massive earthquake in January

¶1725

2001, the proposal could not be finalized.
Thereafter, no final decision could be taken on

¶1726

the issue and in the meantime, the land policy
2004 for major ports was issued by the Central
Government under Section 111 of the said Act,
requiring the KPT to send proposal as per the

¶1727

Page 240 of 273

¶1728

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1729

directions contained therein. Some litigation
also ensued in respect of the Tender issued by
the KPT in 2005. Hence, according to him the
proposal for revising scale of rates could not
be finalized by the KPT at the relevant stages,
and therefore, the KPT had proposed to revise
the SoR from July 1999. Since the lessees were
aware about guidelines issued in the land
policies to the effect that based on the market
value at the time of revision of scale of rates,
the ground rent would be revised every five
years, they were estopped from contending that
they were not liable to pay the same as and when
the liability accrued.

¶1730

disputed that the lands in question were
allotted to the petitioners or their
predecessors as the case may be on either
execution of the lease deed or by issuing the
letter of allotment. It is also not disputed
that the contract for the lease of the land up
to 30 years was required to be entered into by
the KPT by executing the lease deed as per

¶1731

Page 241 of 273

¶1732

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1733

Section 34 of the said Act, though in certain

¶1734

cases the lands have been allotted only on the
letter of allotment without execution of the
lease deed, as has been done in case of SCA

¶1735

No.2535 of 2017. In the said case the letter of
allotment was issued on 27.10.1995 in favour of

¶1736

M/s.Unit Storage and Tankers Terminals Ltd., the
predecessor of the petitioner IMC. The said
allotment was subject to the terms and

¶1737

conditions stipulated in its annexure. One of
the conditions as mentioned in Clause 9 thereof

¶1738

was that the ground rent fixed for plot shall be
revised/enhanced/refixed at the option of the

¶1739

lessor at the end of every five years on or

¶1740

after 1st January. The ground rent will be

¶1741

revised on the basis of market value prevailing
at the time of revision of ground rent. The

¶1742

allottee shall pay the ground rent at the
revised rate from the date of revision. In other

¶1743

cases, where the lease deeds were executed like

¶1744

in case of SCA No.2538 of 2017 filed by IMC, the

¶1745

Clause 7 of the lease deed executed by the KPT

¶1746

in favour of M/s.Indian Molasses Company,
stipulated that the ground rent at the option of

¶1747

Page 242 of 273

¶1748

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1749

the lessor, be revised and refixed at the end of
every ten years, subject to the condition that
the ground rent so refixed at the end of first
ten years shall not exceed the double the
original rent and the ground rent so refixed at
the end of second ten years shall not exceed
thrice the rent originally fixed.

¶1750

62.At this juncture, it is required to be

¶1751

noted that Sub-clause (d) of Clause 6.3.(1) of
2010 Land Policy and Sub-clause (c) of Clause 13
of the Land Policy of 2014 issued under Section
111 of the said Act, provided that the scale of
rates would be revised every five years by the
TAMP. Thus, having regard to the terms and
conditions contained in the letter of allotment
and the lease deed on one hand and to the
Section 49 of the Act and the provisions
contained in the Land Policies of 2010 and 2014

¶1752

on the other hand, it emerges that SoR could be
framed or revised once in five years by the
TAMP. The question is, could they be raised
retrospectively by the TAMP, if not revised or
refixed at the relevant time ?

¶1753

Page 243 of 273

¶1754

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1755

63.Now, Section 49 of the Act mandates the

¶1756

TAMP to frame the SoR on the payment of which
any property belonging to or in possession of or
occupation of the Board may be used for the
purposes mentioned therein, including for
leasing of land. It is fundamental rule of law
that no statute shall be construed to have a
retrospectiveoperationunlesssucha

¶1757

construction appears very clearly in the Act or
arises by necessary and distinct implication.

¶1758

The Land Policies issued by the Government of

¶1759

India in exercise of powers under Section 111 of
the said Act are statutory guidelines, in the

¶1760

nature of subordinate legislation and are
binding to the TAMP. It cannot be gainsaid that

¶1761

the legislature has a plenary power in the
matter of enactment of statutes and can itself

¶1762

make retrospective laws, subject of course, to
the constitutional limitations, however, at the

¶1763

same time it is trite law that a delegatee
cannot exercise the said power unless it is
specifically spelled out in express words of the

¶1764

delegation or by compelling implications. In
this regard, beneficial reference of the

¶1765

Page 244 of 273

¶1766

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1767

decisions of the Supreme Court in case of

¶1768

Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor and Ors.

¶1769

Vs. Associated Transport Madras (P) Ltd.,
reported in 1980 (4) SCC 597 and in case of

¶1770

Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited and Ors. Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2011) 3

¶1771

SCC 193 be made. The Supreme Court in case of

¶1772

Vice Chancellor, M. D. University Rohtak Vs.
Jahan Singh (supra) while examining the issue as
to whether the regulations framed by the
executive council of a University constituted
under the Maharishi Dayanand University Act,
could have given retrospective effect or retro-
active operation, had held that in absence of
any provision contained in the legislative Act,
a delegatee cannot make a delegated legislation
with retrospective effect.

¶1773

64.In case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P)

¶1774

Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,

¶1775

reported in (2006) 3 SCC 620 also it has been
held that it is beyond any cavil that a
subordinate legislation can be given a

¶1776

retrospective effect and retroactive operation,

¶1777

Page 245 of 273

¶1778

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1779

if any power in this behalf is contained in the
main Act.

¶1780

65.The Supreme Court in case ofJ.

¶1781

Jayalalithaa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and
Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401, reiterated
the proposition of law that when the statute
provides for a particular procedure, the
authority has to follow the same and cannot be
permitted to act in contravention of the same.
In other words where a statute requires to do a
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must
be done in that way and not contrary to it at
all. Other methods or mode of performance are
impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The said
settled legal proposition is based on a legal
maxim expressio unis est exclusio alterius,
meaning thereby, if a statute provided a thing
to be done in a particular way, then it is to be
done in that manner and in no other manner.

¶1782

66.Applying the aforesaid legal position
to the facts of the present cases, it clearly
transpires that neither the MPT Act, nor the
Land Policies issued under Section 111 of the

¶1783

Page 246 of 273

¶1784

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1785

said Act permitted the TAMP to frame the scale
of rates with retrospective effect. The only
leverage perpetuated under the said policies was
to frame SoR once in five years. The TAMP
accordingly at the best could have framed the
scale of rates once in five years keeping in
view the statutory guidelines, however, could
not have approved the proposal of KPT to give
effect of the said scale of rates

¶1786

retrospectively from July 1999 as given in the
order of 2011. It has also been rightly pointed
out by learned Advocate for the petitioners that
the TAMP though had raised a query to the KPT as
to whether the lease agreement with the lessees
contained a clause allowing for retrospective
revision of the lease rent, and the TAMP relied
upon the reply given by the KPT that there were
provisions for such revisions, without actually
verifying as to whether there were any such
provisions in the lease agreement or in the land
policies.

¶1787

67.In the opinion of the Court, the TAMP
could not have revised the scale of rates giving

¶1788

Page 247 of 273

¶1789

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1790

retrospective effect in absence of any specific
provision either under the Act or the Rules or
the Land Policies empowering it to revise the
SoR with retrospective effect. Though it is true

¶1791

that the legality, the methodology, and the
periodicity to pay revised scale of rates was
fixed and imposed on the lessees as per the
directions given in the Land Policies, the
quantification of the liability from time to

¶1792

time was required to be made by the KPT once in
five years. Though the delay on the part of the

¶1793

KPT in not making proposal since 1999 has been
sought to be justified by Mr.Mihir Joshi, the
said justification is not palatable. It is
observed by the TAMP in its order of 2011, that

¶1794

after the direction to the KPT to
classify/reclassify the land taking into
consideration the purpose for which it was
allotted as per the order dated 23.3.1999, there

¶1795

was no proposal forth coming from the KPT in
that regard even after the lapse of nine years,
and therefore, the TAMP vide its order dated

¶1796

2.4.2008 had directed the KPT to formulate
suitable revision proposal for Kandla land, and

¶1797

Page 248 of 273

¶1798

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1799

in the said backdrop, the KPT on 19.4.2010

¶1800

submitted the proposal for revision of rate
structure. From the said observation itself it
clearly transpires that there was absolutely
lethargic and a very lackadaisical approach on
the part of the KPT in not sending the proposal
for revision of SoR for about nine years.

¶1801

68.As rightly submitted by the learned

¶1802

Advocates for the petitioners the party cannot
be permitted to take undue advantage of its own

¶1803

wrong. At this juncture, it would apposite to
refer the Latin maxim - Commodumex injuria sua

¶1804

nemo habere debet meaning thereby, no party can
take undue advantage of its own wrong. The
Supreme Court in case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh

¶1805

Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2007)
11 SCC 447, has held that man cannot be

¶1806

permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of

¶1807

his own wrong to be favourable in the
interpretation of law. He who prevents a thing

¶1808

from being done shall not avail himself of the
non-performance he has occasioned. Hence, if the

¶1809

KPT had failed to make proposal on time as

¶1810

Page 249 of 273

¶1811

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1812

required under the lease deed or under the Land
Policies, which the KPT was expected to make
once in five years,the KPT could not have made
proposal in the year 2010 for revising the rate
structure with effect from July 1999 and the
TAMP also could not have revised the same with
retrospective effect. As the TAMP could have
revised the SoR once in five years as per the
land policies, it should have revised the same

¶1813

only for the last slab of five years from
1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013, but in no case could

¶1814

have given effect prior to 1.1.2009, much less
from July 1999. When the TAMP was not vested
with the power either under the Act or under the
guidelines/policies issued under Section 111 of

¶1815

the Act, to frame the SoR with retrospective
effect, the TAMP's order of 2011 ex facie
suffers from illegality to the extent of making
the SoR applicable with retrospective effect
from July 1999.

¶1816

69.In that view of the matter, the Court

¶1817

is of the opinion that the impugned order dated
25.3.2011 notified vide the Notification dated

¶1818

Page 250 of 273

¶1819

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1820

11.5.2011 to the extent it has given

¶1821

retrospective effect to the SoR from July 1999
being without any authority of law is bad, and
therefore, deserves to be set aside to the said

¶1822

extent. The Court, however, confirms the said
order of 2011 to the extent it gives effect of
SoR framed for five years i.e. the period from

¶1823

1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013. The demand notices, if

¶1824

issued by the KPT to the concerned petitioners,

¶1825

on the basis of the said order of 25.3.2011

¶1826

shall necessarily stand set aside. Of course,

¶1827

the KPT shall be entitled to issue fresh notices

¶1828

on the basis of the modified order and take

¶1829

action or file proceedings against the concerned
defaulting petitioners in accordance with law.

¶1830

So far as the impugned order dated 13.11.2014
notified vide the Notification dated 4.12.014 is

¶1831

concerned, the TAMP has rightly given effect to

¶1832

the said scale of rates revised by it for a
period of five years with effect from 1.1.2014
till 31.12.2018, which is in consonance with the

¶1833

Land Policy of 2014, and therefore, no
interference is called for so far as the said

¶1834

order is concerned.

¶1835

Page 251 of 273

¶1836

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1837

Re: Renewal of lease :

¶1838

70.With regard to the issue of renewal of

¶1839

lease, it is pertinent to note that as per
Section 34 of the said Act, no contract for the
lease of the property of the Port for a term
exceeding 30 years could be made unless it has
been previously approved by the Central
Government. As per the Land Policies issued by
the Central Government from time to time under
Section 111 of the said Act, the renewals of
leases were to be governed by the relevant
clauses of the said Policies, relating to the
lands within the customs bonded area and the
lands falling outside the customs bonded area.
It is trite to say that renewal of lease cannot
be claimed by the lessee as a matter of right,
inasmuch as the primary requirement for
considering the request for renewals would be

¶1840

the existence of a valid lease in favour of the

¶1841

lessee and that there should not be any
outstanding dues payable by the lessees. Out of
the petitioners herein, the petitioner IMC of

¶1842

SCA No.2538 of 2017, the petitioner IOC in SCA

¶1843

Page 252 of 273

¶1844

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1845

No.13409 of 2014, the petitioner Tankers'

¶1846

Association in SCA No.10306 of 2015, the

¶1847

petitioner Avean in SCA No.2905 of 2015, the
petitioner Laxmi Motors in SCA No.16225 of 2013,

¶1848

the petitioner IFFCO in SCA 673 of 2014 and SCA

¶1849

No.2607 of 2012 and the petitioner Kesar
Terminals in SCA No.11497 of 2015, No.10892 of
2016, No.10891 of 2016 and No.10730 of 2016,
have prayed for the renewal of their respective
leases.

¶1850

71.Before examining the individual case of

¶1851

the petitioners for renewal, it may be noted
that the port lands belong to the respondent KPT
and are the public premises within the meaning
of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1971, and are
governed by the provisions of the MPT Act and by
the policy guidelines issued under Section 111

¶1852

of the said Act. The Clause 6.2.2.2 of 2010 Land
Policy pertaining to the renewal of existing

¶1853

leases, inter alia provided that the port should
first verify if the land was required for its
own use. If not required, it could be renewed if

¶1854

Page 253 of 273

¶1855

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1856

it was consistent with the land use plan and
subject to other conditions mentioned therein.
Similar provision has been made in Clause 11.3
in the 2014 land policy guidelines. Hence, the

¶1857

KPT is required to consider the said provisions
while taking decision on renewal/non-renewal of
the lease. If the lease is not renewed after the

¶1858

expiry of lease period, the status of lessee in
respect of the public premises becomes that of
an unauthorized occupant liable to be evicted
under the Public Premises (Eviction of
unauthorized Occupants) Act. There can not be
any automatic renewal of lease merely because
the lessee has remained in possession of the
premises. It is also well settled position of
law that mere acceptance of rent by lessor for
subsequent period during which the lessee
continued to occupy the leased premises after
the expiry of lease period cannot be said to a

¶1859

conduct signifying 'assent' to the continuance

¶1860

of the lease. In this regard, a very apt
observations made by the Supreme Court in case

¶1861

of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj
Agencies Private Limited, reported in (2016) 11

¶1862

Page 254 of 273

¶1863

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1864

SCC 406 be made, which read as under:-

¶1865

 "24.In this regard, it would be
necessary for this Court to refer to the
decision relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellant, in the case of Shanti
Prasad Devi & Anr. v. Shankar Mahto & Ors.,
wherein this Court, while interpreting
Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 with regard to its applicability and
the effect of “holding over”, held that it
is necessary to obtain assent of the
landlord for continuation of lease after the
expiry of lease period and mere acceptance
of rent by the lessor, in absence of
agreement to the contrary, for subsequent
months where lessee continues to occupy
lease premises cannot be said to be conduct
signifying assent on its part. The relevant
paras 18 and 19 of the case are extracted
below :-

¶1866

“18. We fully agree with the High Court
and the first appellate court below
that on expiry of period of lease, mere
acceptance of rent for the subsequent
months in which the lessee continued to
occupy the lease premises cannot be
said to be a conduct signifying
“assent” to the continuance of the
lease even after expiry of lease
period. To the legal notice seeking
renewal of lease, the lessor gave no
reply. The agreement of renewal
contained in clause (7) read with
clause (9) required fulfillment of two
conditions: first, the exercise of
option of renewal by the lessee before
the expiry of original period of lease
and second, fixation of terms and
conditions for the renewed period of
lease by mutual consent and in absence
thereof through the mediation of local
mukhia or panchas of the village. The
aforesaid renewal clauses (7) and (9)
in the agreement of lease clearly fell

¶1867

Page 255 of 273

¶1868

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1869

within the expression “agreement to the
contrary” used in Section 116 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Under the
aforesaid clauses option to seek
renewal was to be exercised before
expiry of the lease and on specified
conditions.

¶1870

 19. The lessor in the present case had
neither expressly nor impliedly agreed
for renewal. The renewal as provided in
the original contract was required to
be obtained by following a specified
procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms
or in the alternative through the
mediation of Mukhias and Panchas. In
the instant case, there is a renewal
clause in the contract prescribing a
particular period and mode of renewal
which was “an agreement to the
contrary” within the meaning of
Section116 of the Transfer of Property
Act. In the face of specific clauses
(7) and (9) for seeking renewal there
could be no implied renewal by “holding
over” on mere acceptance of the rent
offered by the lessee. In the instant
case, option of renewal was exercised
not in accordance with the terms of
renewal clause that is before the
expiry of lease. It was exercised after
expiry of lease and the lessee
continued to remain in use and
occupation of the leased premises. The
rent offered was accepted by the lessor
for the period the lessee overstayed on
the leased premises. The lessee, in the
above circumstances, could not claim
that he was “holding over” as a lessee
within the meaning of Section 116 the
Transfer of Property Act.”

¶1871

72.It has been further held in paragraph

¶1872

27 as under in the light of the Public Premises

¶1873

Page 256 of 273

¶1874

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1875

Act -

¶1876

"27. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a
general law governing the landlord and the
tenant relationship in general. The specific
Rent Control Acts are advancement over the
The Transfer of Property Act, thereby
providing more protection to the tenant from
arbitrary increase of rent and ejectment
from the rented premises by the landlord.
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid case
law, it can be concluded that the The
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not
applicable in respect of the public
premises. The property in question is public
premises by virtue of Section 2(e)(3)(ii) of
thePublicPremises(Evictionof
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which is
reproduced hereunder:

¶1877

“2(e) “public premises” means—

¶1878

(3) in relation to the [National
Capital Territory of Delhi—

¶1879

(ii) any premises belonging to the
DelhiDevelopmentAuthority,
whether such premises are in the
possession of, or leased out by,
the said Authority;….”

¶1880

Therefore, in the instant case, as per
clause III(b) of the lease deed and Sections
21 and 22 of the DD Act read with Rule 43 of
the Nazul Land Rules and in the light of
Shanti Prasad Devi, Sarup Singh Gupta and
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. cases (supra), there
cannot be an automatic renewal of lease in
favour of the original lessee once it stands
terminated by efflux of time and also by
issuing notice terminating the lease. Merely
accepting the amount towards the rent by the
office of the DDA after expiry of the lease
period shall not be construed as renewal of
lease of the premises in question, in favour

¶1881

Page 257 of 273

¶1882

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1883

of the original lessee, for another period
of 20 years as contended by the respondent."

¶1884

73.Applying the afore-stated position of

¶1885

law to the facts of the present cases, let us

¶1886

examine the individual case of the petitioners
who have claimed renewal of their leases. In

¶1887

case of M/s.IMC in SCA No.2538 of 2017, it
appears that the petitioner had requested the

¶1888

KPT to renew the lease deed in accordance with

¶1889

the Clause-8 of the lease deed by its letter
dated 15.5.2008, however, the said request
appears to have been declined by the KPT vide

¶1890

the letter dated 8th October, 2013 on the ground
that the land was required for KPT's own use.

¶1891

Thereafter the KPT had stated vide the letter
dated 16.3.2015 that the request of the
petitioner to renew the lease deed would be
considered only if the outstanding dues were
cleared. It appears that thereafter, the KPT had

¶1892

issued a notice on 28.8.2018 under Section 4(1)
and (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of
unauthorized occupants) Act, stating that on the

¶1893

expiry of the lease, it was decided by the KPT
not to renew the lease further as the plot was

¶1894

Page 258 of 273

¶1895

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1896

required for the purpose of Port's activities.
The petitioner, apprehending eviction therefore,

¶1897

had filed Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in SCA

¶1898

No.2538 of 2017 seeking direction against the

¶1899

KPT to maintain status quo during the pendency

¶1900

of the petition. Learned Sr. Advocate

¶1901

Mr.Soparkar for the petitioner IMC, therefore,

¶1902

submitted that since the petitioner had applied
for renewal of the lease deed in accordance with

¶1903

Clause-8 of the lease deed executed in its

¶1904

favour before the expiry of 30 years, the

¶1905

petitioner was entitled to get the said lease

¶1906

renewed. It is difficult to accept the said
submission of Mr.Soparkar. The lease agreement

¶1907

does not provide for any automatic renewal of

¶1908

lease. Apart from the fact that the petitioner
M/s.IMC has been treated as the unauthorized

¶1909

occupant on the expiry of lease period by the
KPT and the action under the Public Premises Act

¶1910

has been initiated against the petitioner, the
KPT has already replied that the said land was

¶1911

required by the KPT for its own purpose. As per

¶1912

the Land Policy 2010 the case of the petitioner

¶1913

to renew could have been considered only if the

¶1914

Page 259 of 273

¶1915

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1916

land was not required by the KPT and the other
conditions mentioned therein were satisfied. As
per the settled legal position stated herein
above, on the expiry of the term of lease in

¶1917

respect of the public premises, the lessee
becomes an unauthorized occupant liable to be
evicted under the Public Premises Act. Since the

¶1918

KPT has already initiated the proceedings under
the said Act, no such direction to renew the
lease could be issued.

¶1919

74.So far as the petitioner IOC in SCA
No.13409 of 2014 is concerned, the prayer is
made to renew the lease deed without insisting
for the payment of impugned demands. In case of
IOC, it may be noted that the IOC was allotted
different parcels of lands at different times by

¶1920

executing either lease deed or letter of
allotment. Hence, the request for renewal of
lease deed has to be decided by the KPT
considering the Land Policy as applicable to the
respective leases of the petitioner. It may
also be noted that the duration of the lease in

¶1921

respect of some of the plots has already

¶1922

Page 260 of 273

¶1923

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1924

expired, whereas the lease is still continuing
and is expiring in the year 2020 and 2023 in

¶1925

respect of two plots. Hence, it will be open for
the IOC to make necessary application for

¶1926

renewal of lease in respect of those two plots
whose lease period has not expired and it will

¶1927

be open for the KPT to decide the same in
accordance with law, however, no direction to
renew the lease in respect of the plots whose
term has already expired, could be issued as
prayed for.

¶1928

75.In case of SCA No.10306 of 2015 filed

¶1929

by the petitioner Tankers' Association, there

¶1930

was no clause for renewal in the letter of

¶1931

allotment issued on 24.9.21982. The term of the

¶1932

lease has also expired in 2013. Hence, the
petitioner who is unauthorized occupant after
the expiry of lease period could not seek as a
matter of right the direction to renew the
lease.

¶1933

76.In case of SCA No.16225 of 2013 filed

¶1934

by Laxmi Motors, it appears that the KPT had
already initiated action under the Public

¶1935

Page 261 of 273

¶1936

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1937

Premises Act, treating it to be an unauthorized
occupant on the expiry of lease period in 2013.
The eviction order was also passed by the Estate
Officer, against which the Appeal is pending.

¶1938

Hence, the question of renewal of lease does not
arise.

¶1939

77.In case of SCA No.2607 of 2012 and

¶1940

No.673 of 2014 filed by IFFCO, the lease period

¶1941

has already expired in respect of one parcel of
land in 2001 and in respect of the other in

¶1942

2008. The petitioner had applied for the

¶1943

renewal of lease, and the KPT had forwarded the

¶1944

same to the Government of India, however, the

¶1945

Government of India had returned the
recommendation for renewal of lease stating that
if it was not possible to charge lease rent at

¶1946

the commercial rates, the possession of plots be
taken away from the IFFCO. Though, it was sought

¶1947

to be submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that renewal of lease being fresh

¶1948

lease, no approval of Union of India was
required, the said submission can not be
accepted, inasmuch as it would tantamount to

¶1949

Page 262 of 273

¶1950

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1951

circumventing the provisions contained in
Section 34 of the said Act. The Government of
India in the instant case having declined the
request to renew the lease, if it was not
possible to charge lease rent at the commercial
rate, the KPT has not renewed the lease. Under
the circumstances, no direction could be issued
to the KPT to renew the lease of IFFCO as prayed
for.

¶1952

78.In case of SCA No.11497 of 2015,

¶1953

No.10892 of 2016, No.10891 of 2016 and No.10730

¶1954

of 2016 filed by Kesar Terminals and Infra.

¶1955

Limited, it may be noted that as discussed
earlier the original allottee had illegally
transferred the plots in question in favour of

¶1956

the petitioner, after the expiry of the lease
period. Hence, the eviction proceedings have
already been initiated under the Public Premises

¶1957

Act, the petitioner being an unauthorized
occupant and the said cases are pending before

¶1958

the Estate Officer. Under the circumstances, no
direction could be issued to the KPT to renew

¶1959

the lease, as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶1960

Page 263 of 273

¶1961

79.In case of SCA No.2905 of 2015 filed by

¶1962

AVEAN International Pvt. Ltd., the lease period
has expired in 2008. Of course, the petitioner
had requested to renew the lease and also given

¶1963

undertaking to pay the revised ground rent on
the renewal of the lease, however, the KPT has
not considered the said request for renewal on
the ground that the KPT has taken uniform policy
to resort to public auction for allotment of

¶1964

plots. It has been sought to be submitted by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner that as per

¶1965

Clause 5.2.1.2 of 2004 Policy, the port was
empowered to renew the lease in favour of
existing lessee at terms to be approved by the
Board without public auction/tender. However,
the said submission can not be accepted. As per

¶1966

the said clause relied upon by the learned
Advocate, if the option for renewal was not
provided in the lease agreement, the port at its
discretion could decide to grant a fresh lease
in favour of the existing lessee at the terms to

¶1967

be approved by the Board without public
auction/tender. In the instant case, there was
no option in the lease deed for renewal, and as

¶1968

Page 264 of 273

¶1969

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1970

per the KPT's reply it was decided by way of
policy to resort to public auction for allotment
of plots. The discretionary decision of the KPT
not to renew the lease being in consonance with
the land policy of 2004 and later policies, no
direction to renew the lease of the petitioner
could be given as prayed for.

¶1971

FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER:-

¶1972

80.The upshot of the aforesaid discussions and
findings may be concluded as under:-

¶1973

(i)The Land Policies of 2010 and 2014 in
respect of the Port lands issued by the Central
Government under Section 111 of the MPT Act, are
legal, valid and binding to the respondent KPT
and the TAMP.

¶1974

(ii)No interference is called for in the
order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the TAMP and
published vide the Notification dated 4.12.2014
under Section 49 of the said Act. The SoR framed
by the TAMP shall be effective from 1.1.2014 as

¶1975

directed in the said order. The said order
stands confirmed accordingly. The demand

¶1976

Page 265 of 273

¶1977

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1978

notices, if any issued to the petitioners based
on the said order also stand confirmed
accordingly.

¶1979

(iii)The order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the
TAMP and published vide Notification dated
11.5.2011 is partly set aside to the extent it
approves the SoR with retroactive effect from
July 1999. The SoR approved by the TAMP for the
period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 as per the
said order are confirmed. The order stands
modified accordingly. The demand notices, if any
issued by the KPT based on the said order shall
stand set aside. However, the KPT shall be at
liberty to issue fresh demand notices as per the

¶1980

modified order and take actions or file
proceedings against the defaulters, in

¶1981

accordance with law.

¶1982

(iv)The Renewal of lease in respect of the
port land is governed by the land policies
issued by the Central Government and cannot be
claimed by the lessee as a matter of right.

¶1983

There could not be any automatic renewal of
lease on the expiry of lease period. The port

¶1984

Page 266 of 273

¶1985

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1986

land being public premises, if the lease is not
renewed by the lessor KPT after the expiry of
lease period, the status of lessee in respect of
the subject land becomes that of an unauthorized
occupant. Mere acceptance of rent by the lessor
KPT for subsequent period during which the
lessee has continued to occupy the public
premises, could not be construed to be the
conduct signifying assent on the part of lessor.

¶1987

81.In view of the above, following order is

¶1988

passed:-

¶1989

(I)Special Civil Application No.2538 of 2017
filed by M/s.IMC Limited; Special Civil
Application Nos.6909 of 2018, 16530 of 2013
filed by M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited; Special Civil Application No.2905 of
2015 filed by M/s.Avean International Pvt. Ltd.;
Special Civil Application Nos.2607 of 2012, 673
of 2014 filed by M/s.Indian Farmers Fertilizer
Cooperative Limited; Special Civil Application
No.13409 of 2014 filed by M/s.Indian Oil
Corporation Limited; Special Civil Application
No.9342 of 2015 filed by M/s.Oil & Natural Gas

¶1990

Page 267 of 273

¶1991

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1992

Corporation (I) Limited; Special Civil
Application No.372 of 2016 filed by M/s.Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited; Special Civil
Application No.16225 of 2013 filed by M/s.Laxmi
Motors; and Special Civil Application No.10306
of 2015 filed by The Tanker Owners & Operations
Association:

¶1993

The impugned order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the
TAMP and published vide the Notification dated
11.5.2011 under Section 49 of the Major Port
Trusts Act, is partly set aside to the extent it
approves the SoR with retrospective effect from
July 1999. The said order to the extent it
approves the SoR for the period from 1.1.2009 to
31.12.2013 is confirmed. The demand Notices, if
any, issued against the petitioners based on the
said order shall stand set aside, however, the
KPT shall be at liberty to issue fresh demand
Notices. Rest of the prayers made in each of the
petitions are rejected. The petitions stand
partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶1994

(II)Special Civil Application Nos.2535 of 2017,
2536 of 2017 filed by M/s.IMC Limited; Special

¶1995

Page 268 of 273

¶1996

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶1997

Civil Application No.2537 of 2017 filed by

¶1998

M/s.JRE Tank Terminals Private Limited; Special
Civil Application Nos.11497 of 2015, 10730 of
2016, 10891 of 2016, 10892 of 2016 filed by

¶1999

M/s.Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure Limited;
Special Civil Application Nos.8538 of 2016,
13371 of 2013 filed by M/s.Mother Dairy Fruits
and Vegetable Private Limited; and Special Civil
Application No.10611 of 2016 filed by M/s.INEOS
Styrolution India Limited:

¶2000

The petitioners in these petitions have no
legally enforceable right in respect of the
respective subject plots held by them, and
therefore, could not be said to be the
"aggrieved persons", and had no locus standi to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for seeking the prayers prayed by them in their
respective petitions. However, since after
considering the merits of the other cognate
petitions, the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by
the TAMP has been partly modified, the demand
Notices if, based on the said order, issued by

¶2001

Page 269 of 273

¶2002

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2003

the KPT to the petitioners of these petitions,
would also stand set aside. The KPT shall be at
liberty to issue fresh demand Notices and take
action against the petitioners, as may be
permissible under the law. Subject to the said
directions, all the petitions stand disposed of.

¶2004

(III)Special Civil Application Nos.5218 of
2014, 5219 of 2014, 5222 of 2014, 5223 of 2014,
5224 of 2014, 10983 of 2015, and 10984 of 2015
filed by M/s.PSL Limited:

¶2005

The petitioner M/s.PSL Limited has already
surrendered all the subject lands in view of the
eviction proceedings initiated by KPT and the
orders passed under the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1971.
Hence, the petitions are dismissed.

¶2006

82.Interim order in any of the petitions,

¶2007

if in force, shall stand vacated forthwith. It
is clarified that the proceedings initiated and
pending against any of the petitioners herein on
the ground of they being unauthorized occupants
under the Public Premises (Eviction of

¶2008

Page 270 of 273

¶2009

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2010

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 shall be

¶2011

proceeded further in accordance with law.

¶2012

83.For the sake of convenience, Index is

¶2013

annexed to this order, which shall be treated as
part of this order.

¶2014

constrained to observe that because of the
lethargic and lackadaisical approach adopted by
the officers of the KPT in not taking timely
decisions in respect of the Kandla Port Land, in
accordance with the provisions contained in the
MPT Act and in the land policies issued by the
Government of India from time to time, not only
the purpose of the Act has been frustrated but
has created complex issues in the management and
administration of the port land, resulting into
numerous litigations. It is expected that the
concerned competent authority at the highest
level shall look into the matter and take
appropriate actions against the errant officers
in accordance with law.

¶2015

84.The office is directed to send a copy

¶2016

Page 271 of 273

¶2017

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2018

of the order to the Secretary, Ministry of
Shipping (Port Wing), New Delhi.

¶2019

Sd/- (BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶2020

V.V.P. PODUVAL

¶2021

Page 272 of 273

¶2022

C/SCA/2535/2017 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2023

INDEX

¶2024

`Sr.`	`Particulars`	`Page No.`
`1`	`Factual Matrix`	`6`
`2`	`Summary of petitions`	`29`
`3`	`Preliminary Objections`	`106`
`4`	`Findings on Preliminary Objections`	`121`
`5`	`Common submissions in all the` `petitions`	`140`
`6`	`Petition-wise submissions by LAs` `for the petitioners`	`150`
`7`	`Submissions on behalf of the` `respondent KPT`	`169`
`8`	`Statutory Provisions`	`182`
`9`	`Re: Land Policies of 2010 and 2014`	`196`
`10`	`Re: Challenge to TAMP Orders of` `2011 and 2014`	`201`
`11`	`Re: Categorization`	`211`
`12`	`Re: Framing of SoR, whether` `arbitrary`	`219`
`13`	`Re: Retrospectivity`	`238`
`14`	`Re: Renewal of Lease`	`251`
`15`	`Final conclusions and order`	`265`

¶2025

Page 273 of 273

The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Henarohitchovatiya(Patel) Vs Authorised Officer

Sadhu Sharadkumar Pravinchandra Vs State of Gujarat

Darji Seemaben W/O Haeshbhai Ishwarbai D/O Chamanbhai Darji Vs Darji Hareshbhai Ishwarbhai

Naran Lala Insttitute of Teacher Education Vs Veer Narmad South Gujarat University through Registrar

Sharma Nursing School (Sns) Auxiliary Nurse and Midwifery (Anmthru. President Umar Gulamali Mansuri Vs National Commission for Minority Educaitonal Institutions

Sharma Institute of Medical Sciences (Sims) Thru. President Umar Gulamali Mansuri Vs National Commission for Minority Educaitonal Institutions