Partly allowed

Regional College of Engineering and Management v. Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

Orissa HC4 Apr 2024WP(C)/9482/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demand for transfer fees and penalties at 2018 rates for a lease transfer requested in 1997. The Court held that since the request was made in 1997, the dues must be calculated at the prevalent 1997 rates. The writ was disposed of by setting aside the original demand and directing the respondents to execute the lease deed within eight weeks upon payment of revised dues.

What did the court decide?

Direction to reconsider dues at 1997 rates and execute lease deed within eight weeks.

Regional College of Engineering and Management Vs Odisha… — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 9482 of 2018

¶3

Regional College of Engineering and …. Petitioner Management

¶4

Mr. S. Patnaik, Advocate & Associates

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Odisha Industrial Infrastructure …. Opposite Parties Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar & others

¶7

Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 1 to 3

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

04.04.2024

Order No.

Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

¶15

None appears for opposite party Nos. 4 & 5.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the demand under Annexure-23 and for a direction to opposite party No.1 to approve the transfer of lease of plot No. 18 situate at Mancheswar Industrial Estate in his favour within a stipulated period on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made the offer to purchase the land and building of a unit namely, M/s. Burma Fastners Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party No.5), which was taken over by opposite party No.4 under Section 29 of the

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

State Financial Corporation Act,1951. It is further submitted that OSFC agreed to sale the land and building of the said unit in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 11.50 lac referring to Anneuxre-1 series. The contention is that request for transfer by way of lease in respect of the land and building taken over by opposite party No.4 was applied by the petitioner in the year 1997 by placing reliance on Annexure-3. The claiming is that the petitioner has been in possession of the land and building ever since 20^th August, 1997. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the challenge is with respect to the alleged demand as per Annexure-23 with the claim that the transfer fee and penalty of 1% for each year of delay towards its payment is unreasonable, inasmuch as, the dues are payable w.e.f. 1997 at the prevalent rate and not at the rate prevailing in 2018.

¶20

Referring to the counter affidavit, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that no application was submitted by the petitioner for any such transfer of lease which was received in 2016 via online. It is further submitted that since outstanding dues to be payable, so therefore, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 rightly issued the demand letter i.e. Annexure-23 before any such transfer of the land and building in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

In course of hearing, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court with regard to a joint verification held on 18^th March, 2017 which is with respect to any water supply connection to the M/s. Regional College of Engineering and Management. It is claimed that such joint verification held on 18^th March, 2017 referring to Annexure-16 rather revealed

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

that there has been no such water supply at all and the bill has been wrongly raised. Such submission of Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from Annexure-22. Nevertheless, the land and building is in possession of the petitioner since 1997 which is well within the knowledge of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. The only dispute which is inter se parties is with respect to the dues on demand vide Annexure-23. Of course, online application is said to have been received from the petitioner in 2016, as claimed by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, however, on a reading of the counter affidavit filed by them, it is made to understand that the petitioner did apply for such transfer of lease along with deposit of processing fee of Rs. 5,000/- and project report on 7^th July, 2011. In any case, such transfer of lease has been requested by the petitioner ever since 1997 so made to reveal from Annexure-3 though it was not followed by any such application, which is formally necessary. With the aforesaid development taking place, though the request with an application submitted by the petitioner, it is further made to reveal from Annexure-10 that on account of certain deficiencies noticed, the transfer of lease could not be effected in favour of the institution.

¶24

Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since the land and building is currently in occupation of the petitioner with respect to which a sale agreement was executed with opposite party No.4 with the issuance of letter of intent and thereafter, request was submitted in 1997 vide Annexure-3 and the process was followed up by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, under the facts and circumstances narrated above, as certain dues have already been paid and deposited by the petitioner in the meantime, the Court is of the considered view

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

that opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 should not insist upon any such transfer fee and penalty @ 1% for each year of delay at any such rate prevailing in 2018 since such a request for transfer was made to IDCO in 1997 itself though a formal application was received later. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that the demand of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 as per Annexure-23 is required to be revised accordingly.

¶27

Hence, it is ordered.

¶28

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider transfer of lease of the land and building in favour of the petitioner with execution of lease deed subject to receipt of dues payable at the rate prevalent in 1997. As a necessary corollary, the demand raised through Annexure-23 is hereby set aside with a direction to opposite party No.2 to expedite the execution of lease in favour of the petitioner subject to payment of the dues payable by it not at the rate prevailing in 2018, an exercise which shall be accomplished at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

A copy of the order be handed over Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 for its onward intimation and early compliance.

¶30

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶31

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶32

Signature Not VerifiedKabita

¶33

Kabita

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 06-Apr-2024 16:05:54

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Regional College of Engineering and Management v. Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regional College of Engineering and Management v. Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sambalpur Uthadokani Sangha Vs Collector,Sambalpur

Neelakantha Muduli Vs Collector, Malkangiri

Rinku Adjuad@Tiklu Vs State of Odisha

Jyoti Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Ghatakeswara Dhakhinakabata Vs State of Odisha

Biswaranjan Dhal Vs State of Odisha