AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WP(C) no.9530 of 2023 and I.A. no.4353 of 2023
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client obtained lease from Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO). There was delay in construction for utilization of the land for lease purpose. IDCO went ahead and cancelled the lease. His client challenged the cancellation by WP(C) no.14635 of 2013. The writ petition was disposed of by the first Division Bench on order dated 2nd January, 2023. Pursuant thereto his client made application, which was rejected by impugned order dated 10th March, 2023.
Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of IDCO. He prays for adjournment to obtain instructions.
We notice and reproduce paragraph 8 from impugned order.
“8. The revocation of cancellation can only be considered on realization of differential land cost at the prevailing land rate.
The unit utterly failed to furnish required documents to satisfy that it is financially sound to meet the penalty charges as well as to implement the project within a time frame.”
Cancellation of the lease by order dated 5th August, 2011 was quashed by order dated 2nd January, 2023 (supra). Hence, IDCO could not have considered question of revocation of cancellation. What it could have done was to adjudicate on petitioner’s claim, to regularize omissions of petitioner in respect of purpose of the lease. Since, adjournment has been prayed for, we grant it.
List on 5th April, 2023.
Status quo to be maintained till next date of hearing.
……………………………….