Internal shareholding changes and environmental moratorium barred transfer fee and non-utilisation penalty demands

A mere internal rearrangement of family shareholding, coupled with adding the word "private" to a company name, does not by itself create a new corporate identity or amount to a transfer of plot rights; on that basis, the transfer fee demand was unsustainable. Non-utilisation charges also cannot be imposed for a period when construction and use were blocked by an environmental moratorium and the required permissions and clearance could not be obtained; the penalty lacked legal authority. Amounts already recovered were therefore liable to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a change in the company name by adding the word "private" and a rearrangement of shareholding within the family amounted to a transfer attracting transfer fee; (ii) whether non-utilisation penalty could be levied for the period during which construction and use of the plots were prevented by the environmental moratorium.

Issue (i): whether a change in the company name by adding the word "private" and a rearrangement of shareholding within the family amounted to a transfer attracting transfer fee.

Analysis: The relevant enquiry was whether the company had undergone a real change in constitution or whether only the internal shareholding arrangement had been altered. The share pattern showed no creation of a new legal entity; the change was confined to redistribution within the family group. The statutory scheme governing alteration of name and conversion of the company indicated that addition of the word "private" did not, by itself, create a different corporate identity or amount to a substantive transfer of rights in the plots.

Conclusion: The demand for transfer fee was unjustified and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether non-utilisation penalty could be levied for the period during which construction and use of the plots were prevented by the environmental moratorium.

Analysis: The environmental notification imposed a moratorium on construction and prevented the petitioner from obtaining the necessary permissions and environmental clearance for the relevant period. Since the plots remained unutilised because of circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, the foundation for levying non-utilisation charges was absent. Payment in one petition did not validate an otherwise unlawful demand.

Conclusion: The non-utilisation penalty was without authority of law and could not be recovered.

Final Conclusion: Both impugned demands were held illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to consequential refund of amounts already recovered.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere internal rearrangement of shareholding with no change in corporate identity does not constitute a transfer attracting fee, and charges for non-utilisation cannot be levied where statutory or governmental restrictions prevent use of the allotted property.

---