AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication dated 30.11.2012 at Annexure-AA to the petitions and the communication dated 31.12.2012 at Annexure-AC to the petitions. The petitioner is also praying that the property be revalued and the amount be thereafter demanded. The petitioner is stated to be a company engaged in the processing of rice for exports. In that regard, the petitioner with the intension of setting up an industry had sought for allotment of a site through the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee. The petitioner had also participated in the Global Investors Meet held on 03.06.2010 and 04.06.2010 and subsequently, the petitioner has been allotted a plot. Further, an alternate allotment was also made and a modified allotment letter dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure-L) was issued to the petitioner. Presently, by the impugned communication dated 30.11.2012 at Annexure-AA and the communication dated 31.12.2012 at Annexure-AC, the respondents have intimated the petitioner that the grievance put forth by the petitioner with regard to leveling the land has been completed and it is ready for utilization and in view of the subsequent valuation of the property, the petitioner was requested to pay the balance cost of the land in a sum of Rs. 1,19,65,000/- with interest as indicated in the modified allotment letter dated 02.04.2011. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same had represented to the respondents on 10.12.2012 raising grievance with regard to the revaluation of the property and had sought for appropriate value to be fixed. It is in response to the same, the subsequent communication dated 31.12.2012 was issued, whereby the respondents have once again requested the petitioner to pay the balance amount and complete the transaction. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court seeking allotment of the site for the same value which had been indicated earlier or to revalue the property in the manner as indicated. Towards the value of the site, the petitioner at the first instance has paid a sum of Rs. 21,75,000/- which is available with the respondents.
Insofar as the valuation of the property and the allotment of an alternate plot, what is necessary to be noticed is that the modified allotment letter dated 02.04.2011 was issued to the petitioner and the Plot bearing No. 555-C, 553(P) and 552(P) was allotted in the Special Economic Zone, Hassan, Agro and Food Industrial area to establish the unit.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the same could not be occupied immediately by paying the balance amount, since on inspection it was found that there was extensive digging carried out in the said plot and therefore an appropriate plot was required to be made available to the petitioner. It is in that process, some time had elapsed. However, the respondents had indicated that the very plot would have to be used by the petitioner. But, on certain exchange of communication, the respondents have agreed to fill up the digging which had taken place and to level the land.
The case of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that the respondents had thereafter filled in the land and leveled the same, considering that there is lose soil, the petitioner was not able to put up an appropriate construction as planned by him earlier and the cost of construction would be more than what had been expected. Therefore, an alternate allotment was sought at that juncture.
To the extent of the respondents contending with regard to the valuation of the property, since the petitioner had failed to pay the balance amount and complete the transaction, when the transaction is to be completed and the value that is to be taken into consideration is the appropriate procedure, I am of the opinion, the respondents would be justified. However, the question for consideration is, in the present situation when the petitioner is unable to utilize the land by incurring the same expenses which was planned at an earlier stage and when the respondents are not in a position to either reduce the value or to make an appropriate allotment which would suit the convenience of the petitioner, the question for consideration is also as to whether the respondents should be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 21,75,000/- which had been deposited by the petitioner in the circumstance, when the learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the petitioner has informed the Court that at this juncture the petitioner would be satisfied, if the amount is directed to be refunded by the respondents.
Since, I have already noticed that to the extent of the valuation of the property and when the values are fixed accordingly in respect of all allotments, the respondents cannot be directed to reduce the value in the case of the petitioner and in that circumstance when the consideration as to whether the respondents should be directed to refund the amount is taken into consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even such relief would not be available to the petitioner.
To contend this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel would refer to the clauses contained in the modified allotment letter dated 02.04.2011, more particularly to Clause 6(a), 13 and 15, wherein it is indicated that in the event of allottee failing to pay the amount before the expiry of the time granted, the Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.) and 25% of the amount paid towards cost of land by the allottee would stand automatically forfeited. Further, the condition relating to violation of terms of allotment etc., is referred to.
In the light of the said conditions contained in the allotment letter, it is to be noticed as to whether the same could be made applicable to the present facts of the case. With regard to the allotment of the plot being made to the petitioner, there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever. The extension of time for payment of the balance amount had also been made. In that circumstance, whether the withdrawal from the allotment process by the petitioner is intentional so as to enable the respondents to forfeit the amount is also to be kept in view. To that extent, a perusal of the communication addressed by the petitioner dated 21.03.2012 (Annexure-N) would disclose that the petitioner at the earliest point on visiting the plot allotted to the petitioner along with the bank officials had intimated the Principal Secretary, since the petitioner had approached the Single Window Clearance Committee based on the participation in the Global Investors Meet with regard to the digging and removing of soil at about 6 to 8 feet Depth in the said plot. Thereafter, the Directorate of Industry and Commerce has addressed a communication to the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-KIADB referring to this aspect of the matter. Subsequently, by the communication dated 19.07.2012, the respondents themselves have referred to the said communication and have informed the petitioner with regard to the rectification work of the plot being in progress.
Further, in the very communication which is impugned herein dated 30.11.2012, the respondents have clearly indicated that the complaint putforth by the petitioner that the plot which had been damaged by digging and removing of the soil has been attended to and action has been taken to level the land and has been kept ready for utilization. After adverting to the same, the additional amount has been sought. Therefore, to the extent of the plot allotted to the petitioner being dug for which the petitioner was not responsible and the same requiring the rectification work in any event cannot be disputed by the respondents at this juncture. Hence when the allotment of the plot to the petitioner by itself was not an appropriate plot and the respondents have admitted to this aspect of the matter and have thereafter undertaken to rectify the defect and making the plot available to the petitioner, in such circumstance, where there were further correspondences addressed between the parties with regard to the revaluation of the property and appropriate value to be fixed, the petitioner at this juncture having made all efforts and being unable to persuade the respondents to the situation of reducing the value is seeking refund of the amount. Since, I have already indicated that to the said extent of the respondents demanding revision of value were justified, insofar as forfeiting of the amount as provided in the allotment letter, the same cannot be made applicable to the instant facts of the case where there are several intervening circumstances under which the respondents themselves have also been responsible for non-utilization of the plot by the petitioner within the time by completing the transaction by paying the balance amount.
Therefore, if these aspects are kept in view, though the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief of revaluation of the property, the deduction of any portion of the amount deposited by the petitioner by relying on such terms and conditions would not be fair and equitable, more particularly when the respondent is a statutory authority and plot allotted to the petitioner and declined now would be available to the respondents to be allotted in favour of any other allottee who may seek for allotment of the said plot and the present valuation in any event could be obtained by the respondents. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the relief sought for in the instant petitions needs to be moulded and a direction requires to be issued to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 21,75,000/- deposited by the petitioner within a time frame. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 21,75,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of furnishing a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the said amount is not refunded within the time frame indicated herein, the said amount would attract interest payable at 12% per annum thereafter. To enable implementation of this order in the manner indicated above, the petitioner shall file the necessary documents, namely the allotment letter along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The period of four weeks for refund shall commence from the said day.
In terms of the above directions, the petitions stand disposed of.