Court upholds differential premium for industrial plot transfer under specific circular, rejecting challenge.

The court upheld the first respondent's right to demand a 30% differential premium for the transfer of an industrial plot, in accordance with the circular dated 12th May, 1998. The petitioner's challenge against this demand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was rejected, as the court determined that the transfer did not qualify as involuntary and fell under the category of non-formal transfer, warranting the differential premium. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the circulars and the specific circumstances of the case.

---

---

Issues:
Dispute over demand of differential premium for transfer of industrial plot. Interpretation of circulars dated 12th May, 1998 and 12th December, 2011. Classification of transfer as formal or non-formal. Applicability of differential premium in the case of involuntary transfer.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Differential Premium:
The case revolves around the dispute concerning the demand of a differential premium by the first respondent for the transfer of an industrial plot to the petitioner. The demand was made subject to conditions outlined in letters dated 20th March, 2013, and 30th December, 2013. The petitioner challenged this demand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary contention was that the demand for differential premium was unjustified, and the petitioner should only be liable to pay standard transfer charges.

2. Interpretation of Circulars:
The court extensively analyzed the circular dated 12th May, 1998, which laid down transfer guidelines for industrial and other plots. The circular categorized transfers into formal and non-formal transfers. The petitioner argued that the transfer should be considered an involuntary transfer due to being under the orders of the Recovery Officer, thus only necessitating payment of transfer charges. However, the court found that the transfer did not fall under the category of involuntary transfers as the petitioner voluntarily participated in the bid.

3. Classification of Transfer:
The circular distinguished between formal and non-formal transfers. In this case, since the original lessee had not constructed at least 10% of the permissible FSI of the plot area, the transfer was classified as a non-formal transfer. As per the circular, for non-formal transfers where construction criteria are not met, a 30% differential premium is applicable. The court determined that the demand for the 30% differential premium was in accordance with the policy outlined in the circular dated 12th May, 1998.

4. Applicability of Circulars:
The petitioner attempted to rely on a circular dated 12th December, 2011, which was issued as a clarification to the circular dated 12th May, 1998. However, the court noted that the clarification applied only to applications received after 12th August, 2011, while the petitioner's application was submitted prior to this date. Therefore, the court upheld the demand for the 30% differential premium as per the policy reflected in the original circular of 12th May, 1998.

5. Final Decision:
After considering the arguments and the provisions of the circulars, the court concluded that the demand for the 30% differential premium was valid and in line with the policy set forth in the circular dated 12th May, 1998. The court rejected the petitioner's challenge and upheld the first respondent's right to demand the specified premium as a condition for the transfer of the industrial plot.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the final decision regarding the demand for a differential premium for the transfer of the industrial plot.

---