Abdul Aziz Ganai vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others

Sanjeev Kumar, J

The petitioner, in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for the following reliefs:

(i) Writ of Certiorari, to quash a communication bearing No. SIDCO/Est/R/09/433/518-21 dated 01.11.2021; and

(ii) To quash an Order of consideration dated 09.04.2022 passed by the Joint Director (Dev), Industries and Commerce, Kashmir, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 24.03.2022 for allotment of 14-marlas of land at Industrial Estate Rangreth, has been rejected.

Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a proprietor of a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI), registered with the Department of Industries for manufacturing of Wooden Furniture and Joinery since 1986. The Unit is registered under the name of “M/S Mehboob Enterprises”. The petitioner was running the Unit initially at Humhama, Budgam, but later changed its location to Falchil, Budgam in the year 2009. The establishment of the Unit by the Petitioner at Falchil, Budgam, was objected to by the inhabitants of the locality. This made the petitioner to apply to the General Manager (DIC), Budgam, for taking up the matter with the J&K SIDCO, Srinagar for allotment of 1-kanal land at E.C Rangreth. The matter was considered by the SIDCO and with a view to rehabilitating the petitioner in E.C. Rangreth, Budgam, the J&K SIDCO, earmarked 1-kanal of land at E.C Rangreth, Budgam. This is evident from the communication of General Manager (K) of SIDCO dated 19th April, 2010, addressed to the General Manager, District Industries Center, Budgam.

The matter with regard to formal allotment of 1-kanal of land in favour of the petitioner was placed before Single Window Clearence Committee, which accorded its approval in 11th Meeting held on 20th October, 2010, consequent thereupon, the General Manager (DIC), Budgam, vide his Order No. DIC/BUD/F-2643/1496-98 dated 11th November, 2010, accorded sanction for allotment of 1-kanal of land in favour of the petitioner for setting up of his Unit of manufacturing Wooden Furniture and Joinery.

As is evident from the stand of the respondents, a plot of land measuring 1-kanal allotted to the petitioner, was marshy land and not fit for establishment of the Unit in question.

Faced with the aforesaid problem, the petitioner applied for allotment of alternate plot in E.C. Rangreth itself. The request of the petitioner was again placed before the Divisional Level Single Window Clearance Committee [“DLSWCC”] and the Committee in its 18th meeting held on 16th June, 2011, granted clearance for allotment of 6-marlas of land in favour of the petitioner, with the condition that 1-kanal of land allotted to the petitioner at E.C. Rangreth vide allotment letter dated 11th November, 2010, shall be cancelled.

Pursuant to the recommendations of DLSWCC, the General Manager (DIC), Budgam, vide Order No. DIC/Bud/SWCS/ 697-99 dated 4th July, 2011, accorded sanction for allotment of 6-marlas of land in favour of the petitioner and cancelled the earlier allotment of 1-kanal of land made in favour of the petitioner, vide allotment letter dated 11th November, 2010. The petitioner accepted this position, established his Unit and executed a formal lease agreement with DIC, Budgam. The petitioner even availed of soft loan to establish his Unit. The petitioner remained quiet for almost four years and raked up the controversy in the year 2015.

With a view to examining the grievance of the petitioner, a Committee was constituted by the Director, Industries and Commerce, Kashmir, on 15th October, 2015. The said Committee after going into the grievance projected by the petitioner, opined that SIDCO Authorities may be approached to earmark another patch of 1-kanal of land for the petitioner, subject to the petitioner giving an affidavit attested by the Judicial Magistrate, undertaking that he would start his industrial activity on the said land within a period of six months and surrender 6-marlas of land already allotted to him, for its allotment to some other bonafide Unit holder.

The petitioner who had already invested hugely and had even obtained loan from the respondents for establishment of the Unit on the allotted 6-marlas of land, could neither surrender the above said land nor was ready to establish the Unit on another piece of land proposed to be allotted by the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, represented before the respondent that instead of allotting him 1-kanal of land with preconditions, he may be allotted 14-marlas of land to make good the shortfall.

The matter remained under process for a long time. Ultimately when the matter landed before the General Manager (K), he showed his inability to make a fresh allotment in favour of the petitioner, otherwise than by adhering to the J&K Industrial Land Allotment Policy, 2021-30. This was conveyed by the General Manager (K) to the Director, Industries and Commerce, Kashmir vide impugned communication dated 1st November, 2021. The matter was considered by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Kashmir and vide impugned communication 9th April, 2022, it was communicated to the petitioner that his representation did not fall within the provisions of Industrial Policy 2016 and, therefore, he could not be allotted any more land for establishment of the Unit. It is in this background, the petitioner has called in question both the impugned communications in the present writ petition.

The petitioner is challenging the impugned communications primarily on the ground that by making allotment of 1-kanal of land to the petitioner vide Allotment Letter dated 11th November, 2010, the petitioner was extended a promise that he would be allowed to establish his Unit on the allotted land. However, the respondents without any reason or justification, cancelled the allotment of 1-kanal and instead allotted only 6-marlas of land. It is submitted that the petitioner has been clamoring for balance 14-marlas of land so that he could establish his Unit for additional activity as well but all the requests made by the petitioner in this regard have fallen in the deaf ears of the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the reliefs prayed for in this petition, so that he is in a position to establish his Unit fully and is in a position to earn his livelihood.

Per contra, the reply of the respondents as disclosed in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, is that, the petitioner having accepted the allotment of 6-marlas of land and established his Unit after availing soft loan to the tune of Rs. 25.00 lacs from the respondents, cannot be permitted to turn around, that too after a considerable period of time and claim that he is entitled to 14-marlas more land, so that he is compensated in lieu of cancellation of his allotment of 1-kanal of land. It is submitted that the petitioner was happy with 6-marlas of land till 2015 and it was only when he was called upon to repay the loan, he raked up the issue so as to avoid making repayment of loan. It is submitted that the Committee considered the claim of the petitioner and found that 6-marlas of land allotted to the petitioner, was sufficient for establishment of the Unit by the petitioner, having regard to the nature of machinery required to be installed.

The respondents have also brought to the notice of this Court that apart from 6-marlas of land, the petitioner has another allotment of 2-kanals of land for another line of his activity, run under the name and style of "M/S Mehboob Agro at I/E Rangreth.

It is further submitted that the Allotment Policy of the Industries Department has undergone several changes and presently, the allotment of land in the industrial estate is regulated by the J&K Industrial Land Allotment Policy, 2021-30, which lays down the elaborated procedure for allotment of land in the UT of J&K. Online portal has also been created, through which the intending entrepreneurs can apply for such allotment.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that the petitioner is no more entitled to allotment of 1-kanal or for that matter, 14-marlas of land in addition to 2-kanals and 6-marlas, which are already under his possession have been allotted in his favour by the respondents. The petitioner is running two Units in E.C Rangreth, one in the name and style of M/S Mehboob Enterprises and another under the name and style of M/S Mebooob Agro.

Indisputably, the petitioner had initially established the Unit in question in Humhama, Budgam, and later changed its location to Falchill, Budgam. Due to the objection by the inhabitants of the locality, the petitioner was forced to close the Unit in Falchill, Budgam. He applied to the Department of Industries for his rehabilitation. The matter was considered by the respondents and 1-kanal of land in E.C. Rangreth was identified and earmarked for allotment to the petitioner for his rehabilitation. There was neither any statutory obligation nor any representation made to the petitioner that he would necessarily be allotted 1-kanal of land in E.C. Rangreth for his rehabilitation. As a matter of policy, the petitioner was accommodated and 1-kanal of land was allotted to him.

It is true that 1-kanal of land allotted to the petitioner was found to be marshy and unfit for establishment of the Unit. Accordingly, the matter was placed before Single Window Clearance Committee, which upon deliberation offered to make available to the petitioner a plot of land measuring 6-marlas. This was accepted by the petitioner and accordingly, a formal allotment in favour of the petitioner was issued and correspondingly, the earlier allotment of 1-kanal in respect of marshy land made in favour of the petitioner, was cancelled. A formal lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner established his Unit on the aforesaid 6-marlas of land and even availed soft loan of Rs. 25.00 lacs from the respondents, for establishment of his Unit.

As is the stand of the respondents, the petitioner did not raise any eyebrow against the allotment of 6-marlas of land in lieu of the earlier allotment of 1-kanal. It is only when he failed to repay the loan to the Department, the petitioner raked up the controversy and claimed complete 1-kanal of land for establishment of his Unit. It seems that at one point of time, 1-kanal of land was identified to accommodate the petitioner, but the petitioner was not in a position to fulfill the conditions viz. he was supposed to establish his Unit within a period of six months from the date of allotment and was required to surrender 6-marlas of land before such allotment. The petitioner showed his inability to establish the Unit once again at the new location in E.C. Rangreth, after dismantling his Unit already established on the land allotted to him. In these circumstances, the petitioner did not press his demand for allotment of 1-kanal of land, but instead, requested for allotment of 14-marlas of land. The matter remained under consideration before the respondents and was placed before the Committee for examination. Ultimately, the respondents found that the petitioner has already established his Unit on 6-marlas of land and having regard to the nature of machinery employed and the activities carried, 6-marlas of land was sufficient. It was also found that besides 6-marlas of land, the petitioner was also having another allotment of 2-kanals of land and has established another Unit, under the name and style of M/S Mehboob Agro.

The respondents also found that Government of Jammu & Kashmir had come up with fresh industrial policy and had created online portal for the benefit of the intending entrepreneurs who were seeking allotment of land in various industrial estates of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner was thus intimated that his request for allotment of further 14-marlas of land cannot be acceded to, though he can, if eligible, apply online in terms of the Industrial Policy/Allotment Policy in vogue.

I have examined the issue in the light of the rival contentions and I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition. There is no representation made by the respondents to the petitioner, acting upon which, the petitioner has acted to his detriment. The rehabilitation of the petitioner in E.C. Rangreth was a benevolent act of the respondents. The record shows that sincere effort was made by the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner, not only he was allotted 6-marls of land, but was also extended soft loan of Rs.25.00 lacs. As is disclosed by the respondents in the reply affidavit, the petitioner even failed to repay the loan in time. It has also come on the record that the petitioner has got another allotment of 2-kanals of land in E.C. Rangreth, where he has established a Unit for additional line of activity under the name and style of M/S Mehboob Agro.

Keeping in view all the above aspects and the New Industrial Policy/New Allotment Policy in vogue, the respondents rightly turned down the request of the petitioner for allotment of additional 14-marlas of land. The land in the industrial estate which is meant to be allotted to the entrepreneurs, cannot be restricted only to chosen few. There is rampant unemployment in the UT of J&K and many young entrepreneurs are waiting to establish their business, provided they get the suitable land allotted to them in the notified industrial estates in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The respondents have very correctly created online portal, so that all eligible/intending entrepreneurs are in a position to apply for allotment of land and the same is allotted in a rational manner, having regard to the object of the Industrial Policy framed by the Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

Viewed from any angle, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM(s).