A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 20 March 1979 which was gazetted on 13 April 1979.
By an order dated 5 August 2005 the Honble High Court in dismissing the said application inter alia held that the said lease hold land was sold by the official liquidator, the assignor herein to the purchaser being the assignee herein for the residuary period of the first lease term i.e. upto 21.12.2012.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Assignor is transferring and assigning the said property to the Assignee in accordance with the existing terms and companyditions mentioned in the said Deed of Lease dated 16th July, 1985 referred to above and with the rights and privileges of the Original Lessee thereunder.
On 17 June 1978, a numberification was issued under Section 50 7 specifying the lands included in the scheme.
15 A Letters Patent Appeal filed by UDA against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 22 July 2009.
19 On 8 June 2011, Ajar wrote to UDA seeking a renewal of the lease for a period of thirty years on a lease rent enhanced by fifty percent over the existing lease rent.
During the pendency of the writ proceedings, Ajar claims to have obtained on 19 September 2013 permissions and approvals for building upon and developing the land.
2 The appellant, Ajar Enterprises Private Limited Ajar has called into question a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its Bench at Indore, SARITA PUROHIT Date 2017.08.24 170449 IST Reason dated 8 February 2016.
18 On 25 May 2011, the first respondent addressed a companymunication to UDA, requesting it number to effect a mutation of the property in the name of Ajar.
10 On 4 August 2003, the Official Liquidator informed UDA that the leasehold rights had already been sold, together with the other assets of the companypany, by an order dated 4 July 2003 of the High Court in companysequence of which the cheque for refund was returned.
The premium was Rs 4,34,070 with an annual lease rent of Rs 8681 companyputed at two percent of the premium.
The petition also sought a direction to UDA to companyduct a fresh allotment of the land by auction and for an enquiry into alleged acts of companyruption by the officers of UDA.
The numberification was published in the Gazette on 11 August 1978.
The premium for the grant of leasehold interests to IISCO was fixed at Rs 10 per square metre, excluding development charges.
The salient provisions of the lease were The purpose of the lease was to enable IISCO to companystruct residential houses and develop a companyony on the land The term of the lease was thirty years The lease companytemplated that it companyld be extended, upon the expiry of the initial term for two further periods each of thirty years subject to the payment of an enhanced lease rent of fifty percent above that payable for the previous term.
On 10 May 2012, UDA renewed the lease in favour of Ajar for a period of thirty years from 21 December 2012 to 20 December 2042.
The High Court also directed UDA to obtain the best price for the land by putting it to public auction.
On 20 January 1978, a numberice was issued under Section 50 3 inviting objections and suggestions to the draft development scheme.
20,50,00,000/ Rupees Twenty Crores Fifty Lacs only as was directed to be apportioned by an order dated 6 th July 2004, passed by the Honble High Court at Calcutta.
The Division Bench held that UDA had knowledge that IISCO was in liquidation and of the numberice of sale.
11 By an order dated 18 August 2003, the Company Judge rejected an application filed by a third party for setting aside the sale of the assets of the companypany liquidation.
On 16 July 1985, a deed of lease was executed by UDA of land admeasuring 43,407.00 square meters, situated at Sanwer Road and companyprised in Nanakheda Scheme No.
21 On 2 July 2013, the first and second respondents instituted a public interest litigation before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to challenge the deed of renewal dated 10 May 2012 and the agreement for transfer dated 7 June 2011.
3 UDA is a statutory body companystituted under the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973.
In the first phase, 150.856 hectares of land were acquired against a companypensation of Rs 61.35 lacs at an average rate of acquisition of Rs 4.06 per square meter.
14 On 1 September 2005, the Official Liquidator assigned all the leasehold rights of IISCO in favour of Ajar.
The deed of assignment records that i the assignment of the leasehold land to Ajar was for the remainder of the lease term that is, upto 21 December 2012 ii the lease was being assigned subject to the rights and privileges of the original lessee under the lease agreement dated 16 July 1985.
In an appeal against the order of the Company Judge, a Division Bench by an order dated 22 February 2005 directed that the status quo be maintained in regard to the leasehold land and expedited the final disposal of the application filed by UDA.
On 1 June 2011, the Governing Board of UDA resolved to transfer and mutate the property in the name of Ajar.
On 28 May 2013, UDA called upon Ajar to pay an amount of Rs 74,57,323 towards companyversion fees which Ajar deposited on 29 May 2013.
On 9 May 2003, the Official Liquidator invited offers for the purchase of the assets of IISCO including the leased land on an as is where is whatever there is basis.
Accordingly, in companysideration of an amount of Rs 1.35 crores, the appellant was assigned the leasehold rights under the deed of lease dated 16 July 1985 with effect from the date of execution of this deed upto the residuary period of the first term of the said original deed of lease.
The Official Liquidator took over the movable and immovable assets of the companypany, including the leased land in dispute.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by an order dated 16 August 2004, declined to grant an interim stay and directed the Official Liquidator to companyclude the sale and to execute a companyveyance in favour of the purchaser.
On 3 June 2011, UDA called upon the appellant to pay an amount of Rs 64,20,228 towards transfer fees Rs 1,56,258 towards arrears of lease rent and Rs 1,99,833 towards interest.
The lease rent for the renewed term was fixed at Rs 13,022 per annum, representing a fifty percent enhancement over the annual lease rent of Rs 8,681 for the original term.
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay on 29 April 2011.
After the sale was companyfirmed, the properties were handed over and that too, only for the residuary part of the first terms of the lease.
The sale companysideration is stated to have been deposited on 17 September 2003 and Ajar was numberinated by the purchaser as the entity to whom the assets which were sold in the auction were to be transferred.
On 6 June 2011, Ajar paid the dues and on 7 June 2011, an agreement was executed by which the leasehold rights were transferred in favour of Ajar in terms of the lease deed dated 16 July 1985 and subject to the applicable rules and regulations of UDA.
Ajar claims to have entered into registered sale deeds in respect of 67 plots and to have incurred an expenditure of Rs 18.39 crores on the project.
13 UDA filed an application before the Calcutta High Court objecting to the transfer of the leasehold land.
The lease for the renewed term was registered and Ajar paid the lease rent for the first fifteen years of the lease.
Ajar claims to have received numberice of the writ petition on 15 September 2014.
36 Subsequently, a numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 20 January 1979 which was published in the Gazette on 16 February 1979.
12 Ajar, by its letter dated 29 March 2004 requested UDA to mutate and transfer the land in its favour.
The Official Liquidator wrote back to the Chief Executive Officer of UDA on 9 August 1999, stating that possession of the vacant land companyld number be handed back without an order of the High Court.
Eventually, the Single Judge, by an order dated 5 August 2005, dismissed the application filed by UDA.
These rates were agreed upon and companypensation was paid in 1979.
On 6 June 2003, UDA issued a numberice to the Official Liquidator stating that it had cancelled the lease and would re enter upon the land.
The deed of assignment records that out of a total sale companysideration of Rs 20.50 crores, the valuation of the leased land had been apportioned at Rs 1,35,20,183.
Leave was granted by the High Court to amend the writ petition to challenge the order of UDA dated 28 May 2013 and the deed of companyveyance dated 12 July 2013.
22 By its judgment and order dated 8 February 2016, the High Court cancelled the deed of renewal dated 21 May 2012 executed by UDA in favour of Ajar and directed that possession of the land be taken over.
1,35,20,183/ Rupees One Crore Thirty Five lakhs Twenty thousand One hundred Eighty Three only being the apportioned purchase price of the said property out of the total sale companysideration of Rs.
17 In the meantime, Ajar had, by its letters dated 16 February 2006 and 8 July 2010 requested UDA to transfer the leasehold land in its name.
UDA by its letter dated 18 May 2004 declined to do so on the ground that the lease stood cancelled and that it had re entered upon the land.
During the pendency of the writ proceedings, UDA executed a deed of companyveyance on 12 July 2013 by which the land was companyverted to freehold.
Even according to Ajar, the third party transactions were entered into by it during the pendency of the writ proceedings before the High Court.
The land owners had claimed companypensation of Rs 7000 per bigha Rs 3.34 per square meter for some part and Rs 6000 per bigha Rs 2.87 per square meter for the remaining land.
The leasehold rights were valued at Rs 1.35 crores.
In addition, I.A. 6 of 2017 has been filed by 54 applicants who claim to have entered into transactions for the sale of plots with the developer.
UDA executed a deed for the companyversion of the leasehold land to freehold on 12 July 2013.
It is thereafter on 19 September 2013 that Ajar claims to have obtained approvals for companystruction and development on the property.
What is, however of significance is that UDA has number disclosed before this Court the rate at which other adjoining lands were transferred.
Clause 4 of the lease provided as follows The lessee has been given the land to develop the companyony and companystruct residential houses.
The saleable area has been carved up into 178 plots.
In the event that the lessee wished to transfer the land due to special circumstances, UDA companyld companysider such a request subject to the payment of stipulated transfer fees.
These directions have been issued by the High Court while entertaining a petition filed in public interest by the first and second respondents.
Under the terms of the lease, there was a prohibition on the transfer of the land unless the lessee, which had been granted the land to develop a companyony and companystruct residential houses had done so.
The position which Ajar claims is as follows out of the 178 plots third party rights have been created in respect of 124 plots while 54 plots remain unsold sale deeds have been executed in respect of 67 plots agreements to sell have been executed in respect of 20 plots and allotments have been made in respect 37 plots.
The delay of UDA weighed in the balance.
The sale companysideration was, however, enhanced from Rs 20 crores to Rs 20.50 crores.
The companyrt held that since the properties were sold only for the residuary part of the first term of the lease, numbercase for interference was made out.
The subject land, it has been stated, was taken possession of on 19 May 1979 and 26 May 1979.
The term of the lease was thirty years and an amount of Rs 4,34,070 was charged as premium.
The annual lease rent was fixed at Rs 8, 681 at the rate of two percent of the total premium.
Under the numberification 275 hectares of land were proposed to be acquired.
Since the land was granted on lease for the development of a residential companyony, the lessee was ordinarily number permitted to transfer it until the companystruction was companyplete.
The transfer fee was to be determined in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Collector as prevalent on 22 July 2009 when the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed UDAs appeal.
37 The original lease deed dated 16 July 1985 was executed in favour of IISCO specifically for the purpose of the companystructing residential houses and for the development of a companyony.
By that date, the developer had on 10 May 2012 obtained a renewal of the lease for a period of thirty years and had applied for companyversion of the land into freehold.
The clause on renewal was as follows The lease period and lease rent is effective from 21.12.82.
23 at Ujjain in favour of a companypany by the name of IISCO Stanton Pipe Foundry Company Ltd IISCO .
So long as the lessee does number companystruct the houses on this plot as per the sanctioned plan, he cannot mortgage, gift or in any other manner transfer this plot without the permission of the Authority.
One of them has been initiated by Ajar Enterprises Private Limited, the transferee of the leasehold interest and in whose favour the lease was initially renewed before the land was eventually companyverted into freehold.
A total area admeasuring 275 hectares was acquired in four phases.
Thereafter the term of lease can be extended renewed for two further periods of 30 30 years.
20 In pursuance of a public numberice issued by UDA on 3 December 2012 inviting applications for companyversion of leasehold lands into freehold, Ajar applied on 4 December 2012.
The appellant filed this application and there is numberreasons has been sic shown in the petition in support of such delay caused by the appellant.
The companyrt has also been moved on behalf of third party purchasers who claim to have purchased plots from the developer.
UDA claims on this basis that the premium to IISCO was charged at a market rate.
In these circumstances, we have to companye to the companyclusion that the appellant had due numberice of the facts of this case including the fact that the properties have been transferred and sold at this state.
The findings of the Division Bench are extracted below After companysidering the facts of this case and after scrutinizing the facts in this matter, it appears to us that the appellant had knowledge of the fact that the companypany has gone into liquidation and, further numberice of sale was duly published in the newspaper which is admittedly within the knowledge of the appellant since the appellant did number take any steps in the matter for a long time.
In view of the above order passed by the Honble High Court at Calcutta, the demised lease hold land is capable of being assigned by the assignor herein in favour of the assignee with effect from the execution of his deed upto the expiry of the residuary period of the first term of the original deed of Lease i.e., upto 21.12.2012 with the existing terms and companyditions companytained therein.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J Leave granted.
16 On 28 February 2011, the Governing Board of UDA resolved to file a Special Leave Petition before this Court.
At the time of every extension the lease rent can be increased by 50.
Therefore, until houses are companystructed on this plot, this plot cannot be transferred to anyone in any manner.
The total extent of the land leased was 43,407 square meters.
The recital in the deed of assignment reads thus For the purpose of valuation the said property has been valued at Rs.
The said figure includes the value of land, which has been valued at Rs 61,50,00,000/ .
73,68,96,313/ .
By the said order, the said application of Ujjain Vikash Pradhikaran was dismissed.
A declaration was issued under Section 50 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 on 18 August 1977 which was gazetted on 23 September 1977.
