Ms Sure Stop Brakes P Ltd. through Its Managing Director T Niranjan Prasad Vs Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director and Anr.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dr. Ram Lal Ram, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1&2: Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate For the Resp. No. 3: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶11

¶12

14 / 07.02.2024 The petitioner-M/s Sure Stop Brakes (P) Ltd through its Managing Director T. Niranjan Prasad has filed this writ application for quashing of letter no. 1694 dated 10.12.2012, whereby and whereunder, the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of allotment of land measuring 0.50 acres and encroached land measuring 0.727 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 24 and 27 situated in Tupudana Industrial Area. It has further been prayed for quashing of letter no. 160 dated 16.02.2015, whereby and whereunder, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have issued allotment letter in favour of the Respondent No. 3 - M/s Pavitra Motors Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the land measuring 0.50 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 situated in Tupudana Industrial Area.

¶13

Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is involved in manufacturing of Brake Linings and Clutch Facing. The petitioner approached the Respondent No. 1-RIADA for allotment of land, so that it could carry out its business of manufacturing of Brake Linings and Clutch Facing. Proposal was submitted and after due consideration, the Respondent RIADA accepted the proposal and issued allotment letter vide letter no. 543 dated 12.03.1985 for allotment of 0.50 acres of land in Plot Nos. 24 and 27 for 99 years of lease. Petitioner duly complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter by making payment of the cost of the land. Thereafter, lease deed was executed in his favour for 99 years. The petitioner established factory on the land in question. The area of the allotted land in favour of the petitioner fell short and therefore, petitioner applied for grant of additional land which was duly considered and thereafter, vide allotment letter no. 246 dated

¶14

2

¶15

25.01.1986, land measuring 0.50 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 was allotted in favour of the petitioner on lease basis for a period of 99 years. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner complied with the said terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter and after making payment of the price of the land, lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period 99 years so that the petitioner may avail loan from the banks and Financial Institutions for setting up the industry. It appears that the Respondent No. 01 had also cancelled the second allotment of land with regard to 0.50 acres of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 situated at Tupudana industrial Area, Ranchi and allotted the same to respondent No. 03 M/s Pavitra Motors Pvt. Ltd

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that he has invested more than Rs. 60.00 lakh for development of the land in question. Petitioner has tried to make out a case that due to non-payment of dues from its customers mainly M/s C.C.L, Ranchi, industry became sick and was not making production up to its optimum level and, without ascertaining the aforesaid fact, Respondents issued notice vide letter no. 1694 dated 10.12.2012, whereby and whereunder, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to immediately vacate the encroached land measuring 0.727 acres acres within 15 days from the date of notice, failing which, Respondent will take steps for vacating the land. It has been pleaded that reply to the show-cause notice has been submitted, but no order has been passed till date. It has also been pleaded that in the first week of December 2013, when the petitioner was on business tour to Hyderabad, the Respondent demolished the boundary wall and other construction standing over the said land which was allotted to the petitioner measuring an area of 0.727 acres which, according to the Respondents, is the land which the petitioner has encroached upon.

¶17

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the lease of the petitioner with regard to 0.50 acres of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 was cancelled without following the due process of law and without any rhyme and reason and the Respondents are sitting over his showcause reply and not passing any order on the reply filed by the petitioner to show-cause as to why allotment with respect to 0.50 acres of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 24 and 27 be not cancelled.

¶18

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared and filed counter affidavit. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted

¶19

3

¶20

that an area of 0.50 acres of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 24 and 27 situated at Tupudana Industrial Area was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter no. 543 dated 12.03.1985 and thereafter, lease deed was executed. It was further submitted that 0.50 acres of additional land appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 was also allotted to the petitioner, but lease deed was not executed. It was submitted that this fact has been mentioned in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner have encroached upon 0.727 acres of land for which show-cause notice was issued vide letter no. 1402 dated 17.05.1993, letter no. 2993 dated 23.09.1994 and letter no. 3184 dated 18.10.1994, directing the petitioner to vacate the encroached land and handover the possession to the Respondent. As the petitioner was not carrying out any industrial activity, show-cause notice was issued for cancellation of additional 0.50 acres of land by registered post. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioner was not doing any industrial activity and the land was in abandoned stage for the last several years. As the petitioner has not submitted any satisfactory reply, allotment of land measuring 0.50 appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 situated in Tupudana Industrial Area was cancelled. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Respondent has drawn attention of this court towards Clause 12 of letter no. 543 dated 12.03.1985, wherein it was specified that the petitioner was to start production within six months from the date of allotment of the land, failing which allotment of the land would be cancelled.

¶21

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the production was carried out by the petitioner on the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 24 and 27, but due to lack of finances, optimum production was not being carried out. However, he could not give any satisfactory reply to the specific case of the Respondents that the petitioner has not established any infrastructure on the land measuring 0.50 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 situated in Tupudana Industrial Area.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that this Court vide L.P.A. No. 104 of 2023 has held that if the beneficiary to whom the land is allotted for carrying out production by RIADA does not fulfil the lease condition within six months from the date of allotment of the land, lease may be terminated and lessee will be evicted without any notice.

¶23

The present case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 104 of 2023. Accordingly, I am of the view that the cancellation of the allotment of land admeasuring 0.50 acres

¶24

4

¶25

appertaining to Plot Nos. 25 and 26 situated in Tupudana Industrial Area has been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and cancellation order does not require any interference. The Respondent No. 1 has subsequently allotted this portion of the land to the Respondent No. 3 - M/s Pavitra Motors Pvt. Ltd., which also does not require any interference. As far as the case of the petitioner that the Respondents have not passed any order on his show-cause reply filed against the notice as to why allotment of land admeasuring 0.50 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 24 and 27 situated at Tupudana Industrial Area should not be cancelled and they are sitting over his show-cause, Respondent No. 1 is directed to pass appropriate order on the show-cause of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

This writ application is partly allowed.

¶27

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶28

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Ms Sure Stop Brakes P Ltd. through Its Managing Director T Niranjan Prasad v. Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sure Stop Brakes P Ltd. through Its Managing Director T Niranjan Prasad v. Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Vs Kailash Ganjhu and Anr.

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Law and Ors.

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs the Union of India through the Divisional Railway Manager and Anr.

Ram Bachhan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sugriv Puran Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunny Kumar Soni Alias Golu Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand