TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017, 2537/2017 & 2538/2017 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 2607/2012 & 673/2014) MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR AMAR BHATT for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 13371/2013 & 8538/2016) MRS SANGEETA PAHWA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 5218/2014, 5219/2014, 5222, 5223/2014, 5224/2014, 10983/2015 and 10984/2015) MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR SALIL THAKORE for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA No. 16225/2013) MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. MINOO SHAH for the Petitioner (in SCA Nos. 16530/2013, 372/2016 & 6909/2012) MR MANISH BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE for MR BHATT & CO., for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA No. 13409/2014) MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS.ARCHANA ACHARYA for the petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 2905/2015, 10306/2015) MRS SUMAN KHARE WITH MR AKSHAT KHARE for the petitioner(s) (in SCA No. 9342/2015) MR BD NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE & MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR PREMAL RACHH for the petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 11497/2015, 10730/2016, 10891/2016, 10892/2016) MR KS NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR RAJENDRA GOLANI for the petitioner(s) (In SCA No. 10611/2016) MR DEVANG VYAS, ASG for the Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "said Act") exercising the powers and discharging functions inter alia with respect to the fixation of tariff for major ports including the respondent No. 3 KPT. The respondent No. 3 is one of the Major Port Trusts in whose premises the petitioner No. 1 is operating a common user liquid bulk tank farms. The petitioner No. 1 and its associate company JRE Tank Terminals Private Limited claim to be the lessees in respect of four plots in question, within the premises of the respondent No. 3. 3.3. The respondent No. 3 KPT had issued a letter of allotment dated 27th October, 1995 to the USTTL (predecessor of the petitioner No. 1) allotting land admeasuring 12 acres (equivalent to 48552 sq. mtrs.) for a period of 30 years i.e. till October 26, 2025, on "as is where is" basis for the purpose of storage and handling of hazardous and non-hazardous liquid bulk at Kandla. According to the petitioners, the said land was allotted under the lease on Premium-cum-Lease rent basis. Accordingly, the USTTL paid a lump sum premium of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lac only) as per Clause (f) of the letter of allotment. In addition to the premiu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in supersession of the earlier Land Policy for Major Ports - 2004, for implementation by all Major Ports and Ennore Port limited with immediate effect. 3.8. Clause 6.3 of 2010 Policy provided for the manner and method for determination of market value. Accordingly, the SoR had to be recommended to the TAMP by the KPT as per the procedure and after taking into consideration the factors mentioned therein. The SoR had to be arrived at taking 6% of the market value as rent per annum, and was liable to be revised every five years. It was also provided inter alia that the Committee of the KPT should recommend to the TAMP, varying SoR in accordance with the end use as reflected in the Land Use Plan. 3.9. The respondent KPT keeping in view the Land Policy of 2010, once again sought to revise the lease rentals with regard to the lands comprised in the port and addressed a letter dated 29.4.2010 to the respondent TAMP proposing a revision in rent structure since 1999. The respondent No. 2 TAMP proposed a meeting on 29.7.2010 at Kandla for discussing the proposal from the respondent KPT. The said letter was forwarded to Gandhidham Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI), an association in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....method of determination of market value of Port lands. Keeping in mind the said guidelines the respondent No. 3 KPT again vide the letter dated 26.6.2014 filed its comprehensive proposal for revision of rate structure of lands before the respondent No. 2 TAMP. The respondent TAMP after undergoing the consultative process and after conducting the joint hearing of the KPT and the stakeholders, passed the order dated 13.11.2014, which was notified vide the Notification dated 4.12.2014, by which the respondent TAMP revised and increased the annual lease rentals for the KPT's lands under the categories "A to G". The categories A to F were based on their geographical location, however, the category G was created specifically based on its use for liquid storage tanks. Two sub-categories G-1 and G-2 were also created therein, whereby the category G-1 was given to the lands situated from Eastern bank of Kandla creek to Western bank of Nakti creek, and the category G-2 was in respect of the lands situated from West side of Nakti creek to Kharirohar having existing oil terminals of IOCL, HPPCL and BPCL. 3.13. Thus, the lands of the petitioners were classified in G-1 category, whose lease....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its stand and informed the petitioners that if the dues as per the demand notices for lease rent were not cleared, it would initiate action. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present petition, seeking following reliefs as prayed for in paragraph 81 of the petition:- "81. a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records and proceedings relating to the implementation of the order dated March 25, 2011 notified vide Notification G. No. 106 on May 11, 2011 by respondent No. 2 (2011 TAMP order) and after considering the legality and validity thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same; b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records and proceedings relating to the implementation of the order dated November 13, 2014 notified vide Notification G. No. 350 on December 4, 2014, by respondent No. 2 (2014 TAMP order) and after considering the legality and validity thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its letter dated 27.10.1995 had informed the allottee USTTL that the parcel of land in question was decided to be allotted to the said company on the conditions mentioned therein. However, in violation of the mandatory conditions accepted by the original allottee USTTL, the parcel of the land was transferred to the present petitioner under the Scheme of Amalgamation, though there was absolute prohibition against the transfer of the plot in question without prior permission or sanction of the respondent KPT. The KPT being not a party to the proceeding of the Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Calcutta High Court, the same was not binding to the KPT, and the present petitioners being third party cannot claim any right under the letter dated 27.10.1995. 4.4. In view of the provisions made in the land policy issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 111 of the said Act, a transfer of port land cannot be affected by an allottee without obtaining prior approval of the Board of Trustees, and the transfer would be subject to payment of transfer fees. The KPT, therefore, was not obliged to recognize such transferee as the allottee of the plot i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e. the lands type A, B, C, D, and E after finalization of the allotment of the said 17 plots. 4.9. Though the bids for 17 plots were opened in the year 2006, the allotment to the bidders could not be made till 2009 because of pending permissions from the Government of India. Thereafter a Committee was appointed for fixing market value of the lands and schedule of rates as per the Land Policy. The Committee after going through various aspects and considering the parameters given in the Land Policy accepted the market value of land assessed by the approved land valuer. The KPT thereafter based on the said report had submitted the proposal to the TAMP on 19.4.2010 suggesting revision of rates for three consecutive slabs i.e. from July 1999 to 31st December 2004, 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2008 and 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013. 4.10. On the receipt of the proposal from the KPT the TAMP following the consultative procedure had called for the objections to the revision of rates from the stakeholders, pursuant to which the Kandla Liquid Tank Terminal Association and Gandhidham Chamber of Commerce had offered their comments, though the petitioner had chosen neither to o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under the document of lease and the land policy. In any case, the TAMP had the jurisdiction to retrospectively revise rates and escalate the lease rentals. 4.13. It has been contended without prejudice that the duration for the tariff provided in the order dated 25.3.2011 was to endure till 31.12.2013. The KPT, therefore, had made comprehensive proposal dated 26.6.2014, recommending revision of rates to the TAMP for the period commencing from 1.1.2014. The TAMP after following the consultative process and after conducting the joint hearing of the KPT and the stakeholders, passed the order dated 13.11.2014, which was notified vide Notification dated 4.12.2014. The KPT in its proposal had recommended the annual rent at 6% of the market value at Rs. 15,086.13 for G-1 category lands, being the rate received for similar lands (Storage Tank Farms) during auction conducted in the year 2011 and after 2% escalation every year to arrive at the land valuation as on 1st January 2014. Since the petitioner had participated in the said auction of similar port lands earmarked for liquid storage usage it was aware about the market rates of the lands, and therefore, was estopped from challenging....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y year from 2014. 12. Whether there is change in category? C1 as per order of 2011 G1 as per order of 2014 13. Breakup of amount due from allottee: (As per KPT's claim) 1999-2004 = Rs. 37,10,344/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 28,67,966/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 63,70,416/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 21,83,363/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 22,24,81,912/- *Amount payable towards transfer fees & interest for delay payment have not been included. 14. Date of petition: 16.1.2017 15. Prayers 1. To quash and set aside TAMP Order dated 25.3.2011 and 13.11.2014 2. The change in categorization of lands on the basis of its use under order dated 13.11.2014 3. Setting aside the notices issued by KPT in relation to the demand of lease rent as per the orders of TAMP. 4. To declare that unilateral change to the premium cum lease rent structure as per existing lease deed to be illegal. (Page 6263) 16. Relief Granted No interim relief. 17. Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Not started due to proceedings pending before the High court of Gujarat since 2003. 18. Specific Facts: * The lease deed as per the terms of the Letter of Allotment has not been executed. * Transfer made by USTTL in contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transfer fees & interest for delay payment have not been included. * 3 times TAMP rate charged from 01/04/2017. 14. Date of petition: 16.1.2017 15. Prayers/ Challenge 1. To quash and set aside TAMP Order dated 25.3.2011 and 13.11.2014 2. The change in categorization of lands on the basis of its use under order dated 13.11.2014 3. Setting aside the notices issued by KPT in relation to the demand of lease rent as per the orders of TAMP. 4. To declare that unilateral change to the premium cum lease rent structure as per existing lease deed to be illegal. (Page 61) 16. Relief Granted No interim relief. 17. Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Not started due to proceedings pending before the High court of Gujarat. 18. Specific Facts: * Transfer made by USTTL in contravention of the terms of lease. * IMC had challenged KPT's decision to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011 2 GLH 283) * IMC has made bid(s) for land(s) earmarked for tank farms (G1 category). 19. Nature of preliminary objections * Transfer in breach of conditions of allotment letter is void and letter of allotment vests no right in USTTL in absence of execution of lease therefore no right is ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... D * IMC had challenged KPT's decision to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011 2 GLH 283) * IMC has made bid(s) for land(s) earmarked for tank farms (G1 category) Pg. 440. 19 Nature of preliminary objections * In absence of details of transfer provided by the petitioner, the right is reserved. 20 Issue of Renewal * Clause of renewal in the lease deed and the renewal is sought vide the present petition. SCA No. 2537 of 2017 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner JRE TANK TERMINALS PVT LTD (a company) 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/ Allotment Letter Indenture of lease dated 21.8.2002 WRT land admeasuring 13,658 sq.mtrs. (Page 64) 3 Duration of lease/holding 05.03.1986 to 04.03.2016 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 05.03.2016 5 Name of original lessee/allottee M/s JR Enterprise - a partnership firm 6 Nature of change/transfer The partnership firm is allegedly converted to a company under part ix of the Companies act, 1956. (Page 63) 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NIL 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. Notice by KPT seeking details if permission as required under clause1 (xii) of the lease deed had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in favour of National Dairy Development Board executed on 28.6.2001. (Page 4874) 3 Duration of lease/holding 29.5.1989 to 28.5.2019 4 Status of lessee/allottee Lease due to expire on 29.5.2019 5 Name of original lessee/allottee National Development Dairy Board. 6 Nature of change/transfer Order dated 13.8.2008, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi sanctioning the amalgamation scheme between Dhara Ltd. and the petitioner. (separately given) 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. No specific application referred in this petition 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent Rate Rs. 1.80 per sq.mt. however w.e.f from 1.7.1994 the same was revised to Rs. 11 per sq.mt 10 Revised lease rent rate under 2011 order 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 905.17 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category ? Category A in 2011 Category G1 in 2014. 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order : Retrospec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DPT to change the name from Dhara Ltd. to Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd on the record of the Port. (AnnexureH as per amendment) 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. Letter dated 29/06/2017 issued by the Port. 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 1.80 per sq.mt. however w.e.f from 1.7.1994 the same was revised to Rs. 11 per sq.mt 10 Revised lease rent rate under 2011 TAMP order 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 905.17 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category ? Category A in 2011 Category G1 in 2014. 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order: Retrospective/Pr Ospective Jan, 2014 - Nov, 2014: = Rs. 3,42,20,585/- Nov, 2014 - Dec, 2018: = Rs. 0.00/- 14 Breakup of amount due: (As per KPT's claim) 1994-1999 = Rs. 1,59,257/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 47,70,827/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 61,20,387/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 58,09,018/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 31,76,632/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 3,42,20,585/- * Amount payable towards transfer fees amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y by INEOS dated 29.4.2014 @ pg.67, however copies of the agreement not provided. 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 11 per sq.mt. 10 Revised lease rent rate under 2011 Tamp Order: 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 80.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent rate under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 905.17 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether there is change in category? C1 as per order of 2011 G1 as per order of 2014. 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order: Retrospective/P rospective Jan, 2014 - Nov, 2014: = Rs. 1,08,78,434/- Nov, 2014 - Dec, 2018: = Rs. 2,49,72,212/- 14 Breakup of amount due from allottee: (As per KPT's claim) 1994-1999 = Rs. 67,830/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 11,90,551/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 14,67,956/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 23,56,479/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 9,87,997/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 3,58,50,646/- * Amount payable towards transfer fees & interest for delay payment have not been included. 15 Date of petition: 29.6.2016 16 Prayers 1. To quash and set aside TAMP Order dated 25.3.2011. 2. Setting aside the notices issued by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of 30 years for land admeasuring 55,050 sq.mts. 22.10.1988 to 31.1.2018 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 116774 sq.mts. 1.12.1982 to 30.11.2012 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 86,700 sq.mts. 15.9.1976 to 14.9.2006 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 6,589 sq.mts. 21.10.1982 to 14.9.2006 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 10,430 sq.mts. 04/12/1993 to 03/12/2023 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 165.82 acres (671078 sq. mtrs) 4 Status of lessee/allottee For land admeasuring 4,68,103 sq.mts the lease has expired on 31.1.2018. For land admeasuring 15,602 sq.mts the lease stands expired on 30.11.2012. For land admeasuring 55,050 sq.mts the lease is valid upto 14.2.2020 For land admeasuring 1,16,774 sq.mts the lease has expired on 31.1.2018. For land admeasuring 86,700 sq.mts the lease stands expired on 30.11.2012. For land admeasuring 6,589 sq.mts the lease stands expired on 14.9.2006. For land admeasuring 10,430 sq.mts the lease stands expired on 14.9.2006. For land admeasuring 671078 sq.mts the lease stands going to be expired on 03/12/2023. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee Indian Oil Corporation Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 1,69,55,838/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 2,39,54,572/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 313,68,76,853/- Land admeasuring 116774 sq.mts 1994-1999 = Rs. 6,77,290/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 1,29,36,224/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 1,72,79,049/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 1,75,01,552/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 95,71,342/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 0.00/- Land admeasuring 55050 sq.mts 1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 39,38,829/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 45,52,123/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 60,95,116/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 68,87,244/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 16,73,40,907/- Land admeasuring 10430 sq.mts & 6589 sq. mtrs 1994-1999 = Rs. 6,76,056/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 24,50,850/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 11,92,532/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 0.00 /- 2011-2013 = Rs. 0.00/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 0.00/- Land admeasuring 86700 sq.mts & 15602 sq. mtrs 1994-1999 = Rs. 5,93,351/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 1,13,33,015/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 1,51,37,627/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 1,55,31,344/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 84,31,645/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 48,68,51,469/- * Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition : 8.09.2014 15 Prayers A. To quash and set aside the notification dated 11.5.2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scalation @ 2% every year from 2014 For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts. 2014: Rs. 108/ * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014 12 Whether any change in category? For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts. C1 as per order of 2011 G2 as per order of 2014 For land admeasuring 4,4441 sq.mts. No change in category. 13 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts. 1994-1999 = Rs.14,815/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 2,91,46,994/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 3,89,31,943/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 3,93,25,061/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 2,15,39,393/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 86,61,91,083/- For land admeasuring 4441 sq.mts. 1999-2004 = Rs. 11529/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 3,17,648/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 1,75,295/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 0.00 /- * Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition : 18.12.2015 15 Prayers To set aside the order dated 13.11.2014. b. To set aside the demand notes raising Rs. 32,49,48,581/levied for the revised rentals raised by KPT on the basis of TAMP order. c. To direct that the amount of Rs. 1,68, 38,966/paid under protest for period 20142015 and Rs. 2,34,38,600/be adjusted with future r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v) Land admg. 50,799 sq.mts = Rs. 28/-per sq. mtrs/per annum v) Land admg. 2786 sq.mts = Rs. 11/-per sq. mtrs/per annum 10 Original lease rent rate For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts & 128618 sq. mtrs.. 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/-per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 30/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 39/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2013= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts. & 50,799 & 2786 sq. mtrs. 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/-per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 30/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 39/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2013= Rs. 80.4/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts & 128618 sq. mtrs. 2014: Rs. 597.59/- * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts. & 50,799 & 2786 sq. mtrs. 2014: Rs. 108/- * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category? For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts & 128618 sq. mtrs. C1 as per order of 2011 G2 as per order of 2014 For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts & land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts & 2,786 sq.mts. There is no change in the category. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 sq.mts issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 16/10/1984 Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts issued in favour of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 11-11-1983 3 Duration of lease/holding 1.3.1990 to 29.2.2020 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts. 20.3.1998 to 29.2.2020 for a period of land admeasuring 50,799 sq.mts. 1.8.1984 to 31.7.2014 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 2,786 sq.mts. 1.11.1984 to 31.10.2014 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts. 1.12.1983 to 30.11.2013 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts. 4 Status of lessee/allottee Petitioner has handed over possession WRT land admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts. With respect to land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts and 50,799 sq.mts. the leases are due to expire in 2020. With respect to land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts and 2,786 sq.mts. the leases stand expired as on 1.12.2013 and 1.8.2014 respectively. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6 Nature of change/transfer N.A. 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. N.A. 8 Response ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of TAMP. C. To set aside the demand notes claiming amount of Rs. 18,49,65,895/+ interest and Rs. 13,79,92,367/+ GST levied for the revised rentals with retrospective effect by KPT on the basis of TAMP order dated 13.11.2014 for land admeasuring 91,567 and 1,28,618 sq.mts. D. To set aside the interest demanded at 18% which is exorbitant, unreasonable and without any basis. E. To decide the representation dated 21.10.2015 after giving hearing to the petitioner. To direct the amount of Rs. 15,53,75,124/and Rs. 3,28,42,388/paid under protest for the period from 1994 to 2013 be adjusted with future rentals.(Page 4647) 16 Relief Granted Relief granted vide order dated 4.12.2013 passed in SCA No. 16225 of 2013 observing that the impugned notices and letters issued by KPT qua the recovery of tariff with retrospective effect only shall remain stayed till then. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings No proceedings initiated. 18 Specific Facts : NA 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal No renewal clause in the lease deed and no reliefs sought. SCA No. 9342 of 2015 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of revised rentals for period from 22.2.2012 to 21.2.2013 and from 22.2.2012 to 23.12.2014. i. To direct KPT to refund Rs. 52,98,818.53/as on 5.5.2015 inclusive of compounding interest and future 18% compound interest. Para 29 : To set aside show cause notice dated 23.7.2015 To set aside recovery order dated 17.3.2016 in PP Act Case no. 1 of 2015. (Page 2831) 16 Relief Granted No interim relief 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Proceedings have been concluded wherein the petitioner has been found to be in authorized possession. 18 Specific Facts : NA 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal No clause for automatic renewal in the Leave and License Agreement and no reliefs for renewal sought. SCA No. 16225 of 2013 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner M/s. LAXMI MOTORS LTD 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allotment Letter and Important terms/clauses Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 2,000 sq.mts issued in favour of M/s. Laxmi Motors Ltd. on 29.11.1984 (Page 19) 3 Duration of lease/holding 7.11.1983 to 6.11.2013 for a period of 30 years. 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 7.11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils 1 Petitioner Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO) 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allotment Letter and Important terms/clauses Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 2,54,820 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. on 25.9.1971 (Page 45/57A) Supplementary lease also executed amending the existing lease in terms of the measurement of land which stood at 2,56,091 sq.mts instead of 2,54,820 sq.mts. (Page 65A) 3 Duration of lease/holding 1.7.1971 to 30.6.2001 i.e. for a period of 30 years. 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 1.7.2001. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO) 6 Nature of change/transfer No change/transfer 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. No such application was made. 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. N.A. 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 1,15,240.95/( yearly) 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 2001-2004 = Rs. 45.64/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.40/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation * Lease expired during the yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmeasuring 4,13,509 for a period of 30 years. 19.4.1978 to 18.4.2008 with respect to land admeasuring 35,961 sq.mts. for a period of 30 years. 4 Status of lessee/ allottee Unauthorized occupant since 8.3.2008 and 19.4.2008. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee Indian Farmers Fertilize Cooperative Ltd. 6 Nature of change/transfer NA 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent rate 0.45 Paisa per sq.mt with respect to land admeasuring 4,13,509 sq.mts and 35,961 sq.mts. 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 236.52 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category? Category A in 2011 Category A in 2014. 13 Breakup of amount due: (As per KPT's Claim) 1994-1999 = Rs. 0.00/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 0.00/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 1,34,45,606/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 1,94,48,567/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 2,02,35,139/- 2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms/clauses Leave and License agreement on temporary basis WRT parcel of land admeasuring 50,000 sq.mts issued in favour of Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. (PSL) vide letter dated 18.11.2002 (Page 26) 3 Duration of lease/holding Initial allotment was from 1.11.2002 to 31.1.2003 i.e. for a period of 3 months which was further extended upto a period of 4 years i.e. upto 31.7.2007 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 1.8.2007. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee PSL HOLDINGS LTD. 6 Nature of change/transfer Not available 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 1.50 per sq.mt. / per month. 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 2002-2004 = Rs. 43.76 Per sq. mtr/per annum 2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq. mtr/per annum 2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq. mtr/per annum 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr /per annum *Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014.* 12 Whether any change in category? There is no change in category. 13 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) 2002-2004 = Rs. 31,43,000/- 2004-2009 =....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s claim) 2002-2004 = Rs. 16,13,000/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 57,14,007/- 2009-2011= Rs. 2,21,90,787/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 1,94,94,439/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 4,50,39,996/- * Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition : 7.4.2014. 15 Prayers To declare that bills of compensation raised are unreasonable and without any basis. To declare clause 6.2.2.2(e) and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of Land Policy, 2010 being unreasonable and arbitrary. To set aside Land Policy 2010 and 2014. (Page 2021) 16 Relief Granted Vide order dated 22.04.2014, the Hon'ble Court granted relief staying the operation and implementation of Bills of Compensation and further restraining respondents from taking coercive steps 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings PP Act Case no. 6 of 2013 concluded holding the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises. 18 Specific Facts : Possession handed back to DPT pending the petition. 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal No clause for renewal in the agreement and no reliefs sought. SCA No. 5222 of 2014 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner PSL Limited. 2 Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed occupation of the subject premises along with direction to pay compensation for the period 2007 to 2015 Against the aforesaid, an Appeal was preferred which is pending. 18 Specific Facts : * Possession handed over to DPT pending the petition. * Order passed u/s 5 and section 7(pg.270 of SCA 5222/14) of PP ACT. 13.4.2007 undertaking to pay license fees if revised upwardly covering the period of license. Pg. 192 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal Para 11 (B) of the prayer clause is with respect to renewal of lease agreement. SCA No. 5223 of 2014 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner PSL Limited. 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allottment Letter and Important terms/clauses Leave and License agreement on temporary basis WRT parcel of land admeasuring 51,000 sq.mts issued in favour of PSL PIPE COATERS, vide letter dated 29.05.1992. (Page 26) 3 Duration of lease/holding Initial allotment was from the date of occupation i.e. for a period of 11 months which was further extended up to a period i.e. up to 31.7.2007 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 1.8.2008. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee PSL PIPE COATERS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 08.04.1992. (Page 26) 3 Duration of lease/holding Initial allotment was from 09.12.1991 to 08.11.1992 i.e. for a period of 11 months which was further extended up to a period i.e. up to 31.7.2007 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 1.8.2008. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee PSL PIPE COATERS PVT. LTD., (ON LEAVE & LICENSE BASIS) 6 Nature of change/transfer No details of transfer provided. 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 0.50 per sq.mt. 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 1994-1999 = Rs. 16/Per sq. mtr/per annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 37.80 Per sq. mtr/per annum 2004-2009 = Rs. 48.60 Per sq. mtr/per annum 2009-2011 = Rs. 100.2 Per sq. mtr/per annum 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 205.80 per sq. mtr /per annum *Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014.* 12 Whether any change in category? There is no change in category. 13 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) 1999-2004 = Rs. 69,81,000/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 94,45,537/- 2009-2011= Rs. 1,03,96,917/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 2,82,77,272/- 2014-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.12.2011 = Rs. 17.17 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 = Rs. 17.51 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2013 to 12.09.2013 = Rs. 17.86 Per sq. mtr/per month 13.09.2013 to 31.12.2013 = Rs. 53.58 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 = Rs. 54.65 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2015 to 3.2.2015 = Rs. 55.74 Per sq. mtr/per month 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order The rates applicable with effect from 1.01.2014 have been not approved by TAMP hence the difference of rate shall be payable as per revised rate as and when approved by TAMP 12 Whether any change in category? NA 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order : Retrospective/Pros Pective As per column 11 14 Date of petition: 03.07.2015 15 Prayers A. To admit and allow the petition. B. Unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis as being illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative Art 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of India; C. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring clauses 6.2.2.2(e) and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy 2010 being unreasonable arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India; D. To quash and set aside the Land Poicy 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013 = Rs. 53.58 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2014 to 18.11.2014 = Rs. 54.65 Per sq. mtr/per month 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order The rates applicable with effect from 1.01.2014 have been not approved by TAMP hence the difference of rate shall be payable as per revised rate as and when approved by TAMP 12 Whether any change in category? NA 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order : Retrospective/Pr ospective As per column 11 14 Date of petition: 03.07.2015 15 Prayers A. To admit and allow the petition. B. Unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis as being illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative Art 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of India; C. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring clauses 6.2.2.2(e) and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy 2010 being unreasonable arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India; D. To quash and set aside the Land Poicy 2010 and Land Policy 2014 to the extent it grants an ambiguous and unfettered power to the respondents to base the scale of rates of any of the criteria specified therein as being violative of Art 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1999 = Rs. 9,22,341/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 22,79,644/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 22,45,598/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 69,73,952/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 98,88,431/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 11,11,53,645/- * transfer fees & interest for delay payment not included in the dues. * 3 times TAMP approved charged from 03/07/2008 15. Date of petition: 6.7.2015 16. Prayers 1. To quash and set aside the bills of compensation. 2. To direct respondent authorities to renew lease agreement dated 3.7.1978 at the rates prevalent at prevalent time. 3. Quash and set aside the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the TAMP 4. To declare that the subject land leased to petitioner is covered under Category E instead of G1 and hence rental be charged accordingly. 5. To direct respondents not to take coercive steps. 6. To quash and set aside Land Policy of 2010 and 2014. 17. Relief Granted No interim relief 18. Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Proceedings initiated and pending before the Estate Officer. 19. Specific Facts : * The transfer effected by the lessee unto the petitioning company after the term of lease was over. * The petitioning company was not the lessee and is the transferee after the period of le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 and 3/8.12.2014 issued by respondent no.2 and 3. 2. To direct the respondents to renew the Leave and License Agreement in respect of subject plot admeasuring 2534.530 sq.mts. at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. 3. To hold and declare the Bills of Compensation raising unreasonable demand at exorbitant rates bad and illegal. 4. To direct respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps and to stay the impugned notices dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014. 5. To stay the operation and execution of compensation bills raised by respondents in respect of subject plot. 16. Relief Granted Petitioner was granted liberty to seek adjournment in the proceedings before Estate Officer. 17. Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Case No. 1072/25/2016 is pending before Estate Officer. 18. Specific Facts : The term of live and license has lapsed in the year 2008, the deeds were without a right of renewal. * Transfer is made after the term of license therefore no interest is created wrt to the lands in question. * No right or interest is created in the premises on the basis of the live and license agreement. 19. Nature of Preliminary Objections * As the transfer is af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... To quash and set aside impugned notices dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014 issued by respondent no.2 and 3. 2. To direct the respondents to renew the Leave and License Agreement in respect of subject plot admeasuring 542 sq.mts. at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. 3. To hold and declare the Bills of Compensation raising unreasonable demand at exorbitant rates bad and illegal. 4. To direct respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps and to stay the impugned notices dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014. 5. To stay the operation and execution of compensation bills raised by respondents in respect of subject plot. 16 Relief Granted Petitioner was granted liberty to seek adjournment in the proceedings before Estate Officer. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Case No. 1072/24/2016 is pending. 18 Specific Facts : * The term of live and license has lapsed in the year 2008, the deeds were without a right of renewal. * Transfer is made after the term of license therefore no interest is created wrt to the lands in question. * No right or interest is created in the premises on the basis of the live and license agreement. 19 Nature of Preliminary Objec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.12.2014 issued by respondent no.2 and 3. 2. To direct the respondents to renew the Leave and License Agreement in respect of subject plot admeasuring 3617.50 sq.mts. at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. 3. To hold and declare the Bills of Compensation raising unreasonable demand at exorbitant rates bad and illegal. 4. To direct respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps and to stay the impugned notices dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014 5. To stay the operation and execution of compensation bills raised by respondents in respect of subject plot. 17. Relief Granted Petitioner was granted liberty to seek adjournment in the proceedings before Estate Officer. 18. Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Case NO. 1072/26/2016 is pending. 19. Specific Facts : The term of live and license has lapsed in the year 2008, the deeds were without a right of renewal. * Transfer is made after the term of license therefore no interest is created wrt to the lands in question. * No right or interest is created in the premises on the basis of the live and license agreement. 20. Nature of Preliminary Objections As the transfer is after the lapse of term of live and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are without any basis. 4. To declare differential bills raising unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates are without any basis. 5. To direct respondent no.2 to refund the amount paid by the petitioner towards compensation bill. 6. To declare that the subject land leased to the petitioner is covered under category D 1 and respondents be directed to charge lease rental accordingly. 7. To set aside Land Policy 2014, to the extent that it grants an ambiguous and unfettered power to the respondents to base the scale of rates on any of the criteria specified therein. 17 Relief Granted Vide order 2.7.2015, it was directed that the respondent shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner of the plot in question on a condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount demanded under notice dated 18.5.2015. 18 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings No proceedings initiated. 19 Specific Facts: L. In absence of execution of deed of lease, no rights are vested into the petitioner, much less a right of renewal of lease. M. Second Appeal pending before High Court of Guj. Wherein interim relief is granted against payment of revised rates (pg. 61) 20 Nature o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or land admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. B. To set aside notice dated 12.1.2015 issued by respondent no.2. C. To declare the bills of compensation raising unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis. D. To declare the differential bills being raising unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis. E. To declare that land admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts. is leased to the petitioner and is covered under category D 2 and the respondents be directed to charge lease rental accordingly and also refund the amount which has been charged. F. To set aside Land Policy 2010 and 2014. 17 Relief Granted Order dated 26.2.2015 the respondent was directed not to take any coercive action. 18 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Not started due to proceedings pending since 2015 before the High court of Gujarat. 19 Specific Facts : 2. Undertaking given on 22.10.2007 to pay revised ground rent and upfront fees along with escalation every year as may be fixed by the competent authority within 30 days of renewal. (pg.128 and pg 135). 3. DPT has taken a uniform policy stand to resort to public auction for allotment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are the transferees and occupying the plots in question unauthorizedly. Firstly, the petitioners, who claim their rights under a valid subsisting lease with original allottees, but have no locus standi as the transfer itself was impermissible without prior permission of the Port Trust. They are unauthorised occupants liable for penal rates of lease rent for the period of their occupation and also liable for eviction. In this regard he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Raj asthan and Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 469. According to him such unauthorised occupants cannot challenge the revision of Scales of Rates (SoR) and/or the legality or validity of the land policy or seek any relief in respect thereof. The second category of petitioners are those who claim to be the transferees of lease hold rights, but the period of lease had expired before the transfer, and therefore, they also cannot maintain the petition, since the transfer of a non-existing right is void as held by the Supreme Court in case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 11 SCC 406. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fer cannot be recognized. Without prejudice to the contention that the transfers were unauthorised, he further submitted that the transferees being unauthorised occupants were liable for the payment of three times the lease rent for the period of their occupation and also for eviction. Mr. Joshi has also urged that some of the petitions are also barred by delay, laches and acquiescence as the orders passed by the TAMP in the year 2011 and 2014 have been sought to be challenged in the year 2017. 8. In response to the said preliminary objections raised by Mr. Joshi, the learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners have submitted as under:- 8.1 Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing with Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 2535 of 2017, and 2536 of 2017, filed by IMC Limited, has vehemently submitted that the original allottee - United Storage Tanks Terminal Limited, was a wholly owned subsidiary of IMC and it was amalgamated into IMC by a scheme of amalgamation which was approved by Calcutta High Court by its order dated 7.7.2010. Consequently all the assets and liabilities of USTTL were transferred to IMC Limited with effect fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the erstwhile firm would vest in the newly incorporated company. Such vesting being a statutory act, it could not be termed as a transfer. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Vali Pattabhirama Rao & Anr. Vs. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 AP 176, which was considered and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Ors., reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756. 8.3 So far as Special Civil Application No. 13371 of 2013 and Special Civil Application No. 8538 of 2016 filed by the Mother Dairy Fruits and Vegetable are concerned, learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing with Mr. Amar Bhatt for the petitioner submitted that the respondent KPT had originally allotted the land admeasuring 27458 sq. mtrs., to NDDB on 30 years' lease basis in the year 1989, however, the lease deed was executed on 28.6.2001 effective from 29.5.1989. Due to restructuring of NDDB, all the assets related to edible oil including the brand "Dhara" and other related activities such as storage tank farm were transferred to Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad intimated the respondent KPT to take note of the order passed by the High Court of Bombay and give effect to the same by recognizing and amending the name of the petitioner company instead of KEL. The respondent KPT in response thereto had asked the petitioner to furnish certain documents vide the letter dated 13.8.2010, which were furnished by the petitioner vide reply dated 29.8.2010. Thereafter the petitioner had sent reminders to the respondent KPT but there was no reply. In the meantime, the petitioner had continued to pay the lease rentals as per the demand notices and compensation bills, however, the respondent KPT had issued receipts in favour of KEL only. Under the circumstance, the question of locus at the instance of the respondent was mala fide and an after-thought. 8.6 Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajendra Golani for the petitioner INEOS Styrolution India Limited of the SCA No. 10611 of 2016 submitted that the possession of Plot No. 8 was handed over to the petitioner company on 6.1.1990 and at the relevant time the name of the petitioner company was ABS Plastics Limited, which was incorporated on 7.12.1973. Thereafter on 6.8.1992 the name of the company was changed fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. It has been further observed in paragraph 34 as under:- "34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter." 10. The afore-stated position is also reiterated by the Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465 in which it has been observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:- "9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as regards the locus standi have been raised, have any legally enforceable right, which has been adversely affected, so as to bring them within the category of "aggrieved person" entitled to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The bone of contention raised by Mr. Joshi for the respondent KPT against M/s. IMC Limited, M/s. Kesar Terminals, and M/s. Mother Dairy is that the amalgamation under the Companies Act though with the sanction of the Court, would be a voluntary transfer and the transferee Companies who are the petitioners herein are not entitled to seek lifting the corporate veil to contend that two entities are one and the same. According to him, it being a "transfer" in the eye of law, and not permissible under the letter of allotment or lease deed executed in favour of the original allottee, the said petitioners the transferees were the illegal and unauthorized occupants of their respective plots in question and they could not be said to have acquired any legal right on the plots in question. The Court finds substance in the said submission of Mr. Joshi in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Singer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. M.A. Khader (dead) by LRs. (supra), wherein it was urged on behalf of the original tenant that the amalgamation of M/s. General Radio and Appliances Company Limited with M/s. National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Limited was an involuntary act, which had been brought into being on the basis of the order passed by the High Court under Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies Act and that both the companies had merely blended with each other and consequently there was no sub-letting by the original lessee company. The Supreme Court negativing the said submission held inter alia that the order of amalgamation was made by the High Court on the basis of the petition filed by the transferor company, and therefore, it could not be said that it was an involuntary transfer affected by the order of the Court. It was also held that the transferor company i.e. the original lessee was no longer in existence in the eye of law, and it had effaced itself for all practical purposes. The Court further took the view that under the relevant Act, there was no express provision that in case of any involuntary transfer or transfer of tenancy right ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no conveyance deed was required to be executed separately, then also such transaction could not be said to be an involuntary transfer. The original allottee M/s. JR Enterprises, which was a partnership firm having ceased to exist, and the new company i.e. petitioner having come into existence by virtue of a voluntary act, it would be tantamount to a transfer, applying the same analogy as in case of amalgamation of two companies under the Scheme of arrangement and reconstruction under Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies Act. When such transfer was voluntary and in breach of the conditions of allotment letter, no legal right in respect of the lease could be said to have been created in favour of the petitioner M/s. JRE Tank Terminals so far as the plot in question is concerned. 16. Similarly, in case of M/s. INEOS, the change in the name of the company from time to time was the consequence to the change of shareholding of the company under the share purchase agreement and was a transfer in contravention of the conditions of lease deed. The transferee company i.e. M/s. INEOS could not be said to be the lessee or in authorized occupation of the plot in question, entitled to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re executed in favour of original allottee NDDB for a period of 30 years from 1989 to 2019, however, during the intervening period the entities were changed, and lastly a scheme of amalgamation proposed by "Dhara" and M/s. Mother Dairy was sanctioned by the Delhi High Court as per the order dated 13.8.2008. In case of INEOS (SCA No. 10611 of 2016), lease deed was executed in favour of original allottee ABS Industries Limited for a period of 30 years from 1990 to 2020, however, in between the name of the said company and the share holdings were changed from time to time, and ultimately the petitioner M/s. INEOS is in possession of the subject plot. 19. As discussed earlier, the lease deeds and LOA executed in favour of the original allottees, as well the extant land policies specifically prohibited the transfer of lease, and therefore, all the transfers made by the original allottees were in flagrant breach of terms of the lease and of the land policies. Hence, such transfers, even by virtue of Court's orders pursuant to the voluntary schemes of amalgamation or demerger or arrangement, being in violation of the terms of lease by the original allottees were illegal and did not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dated 5/6.8.2003. Pending the said petition, the said USTTL having been amalgamated with M/s. IMC by virtue of the order passed by Calcutta High Court, the petitioner M/s. IMC had filed Civil Application No. 6449 of 2016 for substituting it as the petitioner in the said petition in place of USTTL. The said Civil Application was opposed by the respondent KPT on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the transfer fee. The Single Bench vide the order dated 14.7.2017 dismissed both the Special Civil Application No. 17559 of 2003 as well as the Civil Application No. 6449 of 2016 filed therein. M/s. IMC Limited, therefore, had filed the LPA No. 1264 of 2017 before the Division Bench, which came to be disposed of vide the order dated 9.8.2017, whereby the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Single Bench for considering the points formulated therein. Hence, the issue of liability of the petitioner M/s. IMC to pay the transfer fee to the KPT is pending for consideration in the said petition. Similarly, M/s. Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd., had also filed two petitions being SCA No. 11751 of 2014 challenging the action of the respondent KPT in demanding the transfer fee an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Port Trust Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 78, and therefore, it cannot seek to issue demand notices relating to the demands earlier than three years. In the instant cases, the KPT has sought to revise the demands going back to more than 15 years. (iii) There is no basis justifying the KPT's demand seeking levy of lease rents with retrospective effect. None of the lease deeds/letters of allotments permitted recovery of lease rents with retrospective effect. The retrospective levies cannot be made in absence of contractual provisions as held by the Supreme Court in case of National Sample Survey-Organization Vs. Champa Properties, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 451 and in case of Assistant Excise Commissioner & Ors Vs. ISSAC Peter, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 104. (iv) The TAMP also does not have any power to increase lease rents retrospectively as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Hindustan Lever Limited & Anr. Vs. Board of Trustees, Visakhapatnam & Anr., reported in AIR 2003 AP 217. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Lala Ram (dead) through Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1994) 6 SCC 623, it is submitted that substantive law cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect, unless done so by way of statute itself. (xii) Challenging exorbitant increase of lease rents, it is submitted that in the 2011 order the KPT had sought to justify the increase in lease rents, which were not revised for several years. Even if it is assumed arguendo that it was sustainable, the said increase was unreasonable, exorbitant and arbitrary. The 2011 order came into effect only from May 20, 2013 and it was revised again under 2014 order. The State instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily and exorbitantly increase the rents as observed by the Bombay High Court in case of Ratti Palonji Kapadia & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992 SC Online Bombay 197.. (xiii) The valuation allegedly arrived at by the KPT in 2005 tender to justify the exorbitant increase, should not have been relied upon by the TAMP, as the said tender had failed. The 2010 Land Policy provided that the market value of the land was to be determined on the highest accepted bid of land, and admittedly under the 2011 order, the KPT had based its calculations on the 2005 tender which had failed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever contemplated, totally disregarding the high premium paid by the petitioners. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of he Supreme Court in case of Bhupendra Singh Bhatia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 700. (xx) As regards the classification/categorization of the land it has been submitted that the lands occupied by the petitioners were originally categorized on the basis of the geographical location of such land, however, the 2014 TAMP order confirmed the arbitrary re-categorization of the lands, more particularly of liquid storage lands into new category i.e. Category G-1 (land situated from Eastern Bank of Kandla Creek to Western Bank of Nakti Creek). Such re-categorization was made only for the purpose of claiming enhanced rents. (xxi) The re-categorization under the 2014 TAMP order is erroneous as it was done without hearing the concerned petitioners IMC and JRE and the same was also not in accordance with the Land Policy Guidelines. According to the petitioners, under the 2014 Land Policy Guidelines, use of the land was not a relevant factor and the only factor which could have been accepted was the highest accepted tender am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod January 2014 to January 2018 so far as the subject plot of SCA No. 2535 of 2017 was concerned and had made payment of Rs. 84,80,655/- during January 2014 to January 2018 so far as the subject plot of SCA No. 2536 of 2017 was concerned. The petitioner M/s. JRE had made payment of Rs. 52,76,389/- for the subject plot Of SCA No. 2537 of 2017. (ii) As regards the subject plot in SCA No. 2538 of 2017, he submitted that the Clause-8 of the lease deed dated 17.9.1984 executed between M/s. IMC Limited and the KPT provided that the renewal shall be granted for a further period of 30 years at the lessee's i.e. petitioner's option. Therefore, the petitioner vide the letter dated 5.5.2008 had applied for the renewal of the lease deed in accordance with the said Clause 8 and the KPT had requested the petitioner to submit an undertaking in the format attached to the letter, which undertaking was provided by the petitioner to the KPT. The KPT thereafter vide the letter dated 8.10.2013 declined to renew the petitioner's lease relying on the Land Policy Guidelines of 2014 on the ground that the land was required for the purpose of its own use. Thereafter vide the letter dated 16.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jor role in pushing the agricultural sector towards the next phase of green revolution. Hence, the petitioner could not be treated at par with the organizations, which are for profit making, and the petitioner could not be charged at the commercial rates. (v) It is further submitted that the petitioner IFFCO had always proposed upfront payment of lease for the entire tenure of 30 years when the old lease was going to an end. The KPT itself vide its letter dated 7.9.2010 had resolved to renew the lease for Phase-II land for a period of 30 years from 9.3.2008 to 7.3.2038 on the payment of upfront premium. Even as per the stand taken by the KPT, the land policy being a legislation has to be given effect to, which policy mandates preference to be given to upfront premium method of collecting rent over the yearly rent collection. Hence, the rate at which such upfront premium would be paid would be the relevant rate at that point of time and the future rates cannot be made retroactively applicable to the petitioner, more particularly when the petitioner had chosen to make upfront payment of premium for the entire lease period. (vi) Mr. Soparkar further submitted that the petitioner I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of TAMP order. Since the renewal application is pending, it could not be said that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant since the 2008. (ix) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Naik further submitted that the TAMP could fix different schedule of rates only prospectively and not retrospectively in view of the Sections 48 and 49 of the said Act, and therefore, the order dated 25.3.2011 of the TAMP to the extent it operates retrospectively is bad. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta and Ors. Vs. W.R. Natu and Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 274, in case Bakul Cashew Co. and Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Quilon and Anr., reported in 1986 (2) SCC 365, and in case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra thro. STF, CBI Mumbai, reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1. (x) Mr. Naik further submitted that Sections 48 and 49 provide as to for which items different rates could be determined by the TAMP and the subject lands are included in Clause (d) of Sub-section(1) of Section 49, for which there is no provision enabling the TAMP to impose different rates on the basis of use of land. Accordingly, the maxim - "expression ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tisfied had issued fresh certificates of incorporation under the changed name of the petitioner company from time to time as per the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Companies Act. The respondent KPT could not levy exceptionally high lease rents and that too, with retrospective effect on the ground that the company is using the land, categorized as land for storage tanks and is generating high income by sub-letting the said land. The land of the petitioner, which is categorized as land of storage tank, is used by the petitioner to store raw-material for its own consumption and use. If the lease rents are permitted to be increased retrospectively, it would cause havoc in the organization of the petitioner as the petitioner would not be able to recover the same from its consumers by giving retrospective effect of increase in the cost of goods. New rates would be applicable to the new leases and not to the existing leases, otherwise it would tantamount to a novation of contract. (xiii) So far as SCA No. 2905 of 2015 filed by M/s. AVEAN International Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore appearing with Ms. Archana Acharya has submitted that the renew....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the plot of the petitioner is not situated near to Kandla Railway Station. (xvi) Learned Advocate Mr. Akshat Khare appearing for the petitioner ONGC in SCA No. 9342 of 2015 submitted that there was no provision of retroactive clause in leave and licence agreement entered into between the parties. Though no bills were raised by he KPT prior to 2011, the illegal demand has been made on the ground of unauthorized use of the plot by the ONGC. The KPT has filed eviction petition before the Estate Officer on 29.1.2013 to which the petitioner ONGC has filed detailed reply giving details of payment made till 21.2.2013. The ONGC has handed over the premises on 23.12.2014 and informed the KPT vide the letter dated 2.1.2015, however, the Estate Officer passed the eviction order on 19.2.2015 holding ONGC as unauthorized occupant. (xvii) Learned Advocate Mr. Salil Thakore appearing for the petitioner Laxmi Motors in SCA No. 16225 of 2013 submitted that 30 years' lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 30.11.1984 and the petitioner has been paying the ground rent regularly. However, the KPT demanded Rs. 2,26,068/- for the period from 7.11.2012 to 6.11.2013 at the new r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t demand of rental charges with retrospective effect, which was not permissible. He further submitted that the TAMP, which was a statutory authority, had without application of kind abdicated its function and accepted all the proposals made by the KPT by passing the impugned orders. According to him, the categorization of the lands on the basis of use made by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP was also arbitrary and irrational. The land of the petitioner was categorized in Category G-1, instead of Category G without any justifiable reason. (xx) The learned Advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioner PSL in SCA No. 5218 of 2014 and others has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of five plots, however, the proceedings under the Public Premises Act having been initiated by the respondent KPT, all the lands have been surrendered by the petitioner and the respondent Port has taken over the possession of the same. However, the petitions have been filed challenging the unreasonable demand made by the respondent KPT at exorbitant rates without any basis and also challenging the compensation bills issued by the KPT. According to her such action being arbitrary and violative o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y imposed on the lessees by the Central Government Policies. Section 49 of the said Act confer quasi legislative powers on the Board of Trustees/TAMP for fixing the scale of rates. Therefore, the contentions regarding retrospectivity of subordinate legislation are absolutely misplaced. (v) In any case, quantification of liability subsequent to its imposition cannot be said to be retrospective in decision as held by this Court in case of Cadila Laboratories Limited and Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2001(1) GLR 48. The determination of market value by the TAMP in any case has to be impliedly retrospective as the same is determined after the circulation of proposal, hearing stakeholders etc., which would take some time and must of necessity relate back. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors., reported in 1992 (2) SCC 124. In the alternative, it has been submitted that once lessees are informed that the current rates would be only up to 1999, the rates are rendered provisional and the subsequent finalization thereof would naturally relate back, which could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary. Such fixation is a matter of policy of the Central Government as best balancing the interests of the individual lessees/allottees and the Port Trusts themselves, which have to carry on extensive activities in relation to Ports in the public and national interest. (ix) On the issue as to whether the bid received by the KPT from the petitioner M/s. IMC in the year 2005 could be considered as "an accepted tender" or not, it has been submitted that the bids of 2005 had been accepted by the Port Trusts by issuing LOI, and therefore, the petitioner IMC, which had submitted the bid, cannot complain that the bids were not accepted by the Port Trusts and that the amount did not correctly reflect the market value. The contracts could not be executed for different reasons like inordinate delay in securing permissions under the environmental laws, and therefore, it could not be the bids were not accepted by the KPT. (x) The valuation of the other classes of lands is derived by the valuer on the basis of applying various parameters and by giving due weightage to the relevant factors. A valuer's report is specifically permitted mode of determining market value. The valuation of prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the purpose of land use. The 2014 policy while not adopting the same language, reiterates the principle by enumerating factors for valuation. (xvi) It cannot be disputed that the value of the land is dependent on the use to which it could be put. The land permitted to be used for tank farms constitutes a class by itself looking to the nature of use which is peculiar to ports and interconnected with the facilities relating to a port. Hence, lands used for tank farms constitute a separate class on the basis of usage, irrespective of the location of such lands and carry a separate value. It is well settled that classification on the basis of use is a valid exercise permissible under the law, as held by the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Hiralal Rattanlal Etc. etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. Etc. etc., reported in 1973 (1) SCC 216. (xvii) The categorization and sub-categorization was made for valid reasons and the same has been accepted by the TAMP after public notice and inviting all stakeholders and after considering their objections as recorded in the impugned orders. The requirements of fairness were met by the exercise undertaken by the TAMP. In this regard, reliance is pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of objects and reasons, the Port Administrative Officer had limited powers and had to obtain the orders of the Central Government of many matters, which otherwise could have been disposed of at local level in the Port Trust. Hence, considering the fact that the other statutory Port Trust had successfully administered the three older Ports of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras for many years, it was proposed to constitute port trust at Visakhapatnam, Cochin and Kandla. In the year 1997, the said Act was amended by incorporating Chapter VA pertaining to the constitution of Tariff Authority for Major Ports, in the said Act, and empowering the said Authority to discharge the functions as stated therein. 27. Section 34 of the said Act pertains to the mode of executing contract on behalf of the Board of Trustees. Second Proviso to the said Section prohibits making of any contract for the acquisition or sale of immovable property or for the lease of any such property for a term exceeding 30 years, without the previous approval of the Central Government. Section 49 of the said Act mandates the TAMP to frame the scale of rates on the payment of which any property belonging to or in possession ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined in Section 34 of the said Act, had issued the Land Policy for Major Ports in 2004 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 111 of the said Act. Thereafter the Government of India, in supersession of the said Land Policy of 2004, issued Land Policy for Major Ports - 2010 for implementation by all Major Ports and Ennore Port Limited. Thereafter the Government of India had issued the Policy Guidelines for the land management by Major Ports 2014. However, the Indian Port Association, an Apex Body of Major Ports having highlighted certain difficulties and suggested some changes, the Ministry had constituted a Two-Member Committee to examine the suggestions and furnish a report. Based on the report, the revised guidelines were framed and issued under Section 111 of the said Act, vide communication dated 17.7.2015. The said Policies inter alia contained the directions/guidelines to be followed by the Port Trusts with regard to the Land Use Plan, Land Allotment Policy, Renewal of Existing Leases, determination of market value of port land and the scale of rates etc. Since the impugned orders have been passed by the TAMP considering the Land Policies of 2010 and 2014 issued in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordance with the SoR or the Market value, whichever is higher. Any concession shall be given only with the approval of the Board." IV - Renewal Clause under the Policy of 2014; 11.3 Renewal of Existing/Earlier Leases: (a) In cases of renewal of existing/earlier leases with or without renewal option, the Port should verify if the land is required for its own use. If it is so required, the Port shall take possession of the land on expiry of lease. (b) If the land is not required by the Port for its own use, the Port should then check whether the land use is consistent with the land use plan and whether the lessees are not in default. Thereafter, if it is so, the following procedure will be adopted for renewal of lease of land outside the custom bond area. (c) During the process of renewal of existing/earlier leases, the Port is required to differentiate between those lease-agreements that provide for renewal and those that do not provide for such renewal at the end of the lease-period. In cases of renewal of existing leases, without renewal option at the end of the lease-term, the land will be put to tender-cum-auction with the first right of refusal to be extended to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the time of expiry/termination of lease, the lessee shall remove all structures at his own cost under the following conditions: (a) Within three (3) months of expiry/termination, if Port decides not to re-auction that land; or, (b) Three months after tender-cum-auction, if the existing lessee was not successful. Beyond this period, the lessee shall be liable to pay compensation for wrongful use and occupation at three (3) times the annual lease rent, till vacant possession is obtained. In cases of land allotted on upfront basis, the equivalent annual lease rent would be calculated on pro-rata basis. If the Port so decides, for reasons to be recorded and approved by the Port Trust Board, it may also take over the structures after third party valuation of the assets with the concurrence of the lease holder. In case removal of structures is to be carried out by the Port, it would be at the cost of the lessee. (j) The process of renewal of existing leases should be initiated by the respective Ports well in advance, before the term of lease expires. The automatic renewal of existing leases should be preferably done within three months of receipt of such application for renewal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt the highest of the factors mentioned herein below to determine the latest market value of Port land. In case the land allotment committee is not choosing the highest fact, the reasons for the same have to be recorded in writing. (i) State Government's ready reckoner of land values in the area, if available for similar classification/activities. (ii) Highest rate of actual relevant transactions registered in last three years in the Port's vicinity (the vicinity of the Port is to be decided by the respective Port Trust Boards), with an appropriate annual escalation rate to be approved by the Port Trust Board. (iii) Highest accepted tender-cum-auction rate of Port land for similar transactions, updated on the basis of the annual escalation rate approved by the Port Trust Board. (iv) Rate arrived at by an approved valuer appointed for the purpose by the Port. (v) Any other relevant factor as may be identified by the Port. (b) The Land Allotment Committee shall, while recommending the latest Market Value for any land would normally take into account the highest of the factors mentioned in Para 13(a) above. Reserve Price in terms of the annual lease rent would be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are entitled to claim renewal of their respective leases? Re: Land Policies of 2010 and 2014:- 31. As regards challenge to the Land Policy of 2010 and the Land Policy of 2014, it may be stated that the petitioners PSL, Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Tankers' Association and AVEAN have sought prayer to set aside the same in their respective petitions. The learned Advocates appearing for the said petitioners have assailed the said policies mainly by submitting that the said Land Policies unjustifiably granted unfettered powers to the respondent KPT to choose any of the methods, or criteria for the fixation of scale of rates amongst the many mentioned therein. According to them, such powers would give enough flexibility to the KPT to raise scale of rates on factors that would prejudice the lease holders like the petitioners, and to that extent the said Policies of 2010 and of 2014 are bad, arbitrary and illegal due to its ambiguity. Adverting to the said submissions, it may be stated that such Policies/Guidelines are issued by the Government of India, in exercise of its powers under Section 111 of the said Act, and therefore, have statutory force. As transpiring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dations of the Land Allotment Committee, the Port Trust is required to make proposal to the TAMP for fixing the SoR and the TAMP is required to notify the latest SoR of the land after following the due process of consultation with the stakeholders, as stated in Clause 6.3 and Clause 13 of the Policies of 2010 and 2014 respectively. None of the Advocates for the petitioners was in a position to point out any element of arbitrariness in the said clauses, which would require the Court to declare the said policies as arbitrary or bad in law. 33. Even otherwise, as per the settled legal position, normally the Courts should not interfere with the Policy decisions of the Government. The Government is entitled to change its policies with the changing circumstances and to exercise discretion to alter the earlier policies to make them more effective. The only qualifying condition is that such policy should be free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, and malice, and must be in conformity with the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness. Beneficial reference of the decision in case of Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the KPT for its remarks and the KPT had responded to the said comments. The TAMP after preliminary scrutiny of the proposal had sought additional information/clarification from the KPT, which were furnished by the KPT, the details of which have been narrated in the Tabular Form in the TAMP order of 2011. It appears that a joint hearing of the KPT and concerned users was held by the TAMP. Subsequent to the meeting, the Kandla Liquid Tank Terminal Association (KLTAA) submitted their comments on the KPT's proposal and the KPT also furnished its remarks. On 4.12.2010, KPT furnished a copy of the gist of discussion held by it with the representatives of various Port users in connection with the revision of rate structure of Kandla Land. The TAMP considering the said information/material collected during the proceedings and considering the comments/submissions made by the users and the deliberations, which took place at the joint hearing, passed the order of 2011, according approval for the proposal of the KPT with regard to the revision of rate structure as per the Annexure annexed to the said order. The said lease rates approved by the TAMP are reproduced in Tabular Form as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the directions of the said Committee a Government approved Valuer was engaged by the KPT in February 2014, the report of approved Valuer was submitted to the Committee. The Committee after considering the said report had recommended valuation of the land as per the categories A to G mentioned therein. Based on the recommendation of the Land Valuer Committee, the Board of Trustees of the KPT had approved the proposal for revision in the lease rentals of KPT lands, fixing reserve price for market value of the land w.e.f. 1.1.2014 for categories A to G in its meeting held on 10.6.2014, and the KPT accordingly had sought approval of TAMP vide its letter dated 26.6.2014. 36. As stated by the TAMP in its order, the TAMP in accordance with the consultative process prescribed, had circulated the proposal of the KPT to the concerned users/user associations seeking their comments. The comments received were forwarded to the KPT for remarks. Based on the preliminary scrutiny of the proposal, the TAMP had also requested the KPT to furnish additional information/clarifications on few points, which were furnished by the KPT. The said queries and remarks of KPT have been made part of the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd west of railway siding leading to Kandla Free Trade Zone and up to crossing of railway line F1 Plots situated on SEZ side from Kandla Railway Station 3430.00 205.80 F2 Plots situated on Ahmedabad side from Kandla Railway Station 6720.00 403.20 G Land of Liquid Storage Tanks G1 Land situated from Eastern Bank of Kandla Creek to Western Bank of Nakti Creek 15086.13 905.17 G2 Land from West side of Nakti Creek to Kharirohar having existing Oil Terminals of IOCL, HPCL and BPCL 9959.89 597.59 37. The aforesaid orders of 2011 and 2014 of the TAMP have been assailed by the learned Advocates for the petitioners on various grounds. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the determination of market value as proposed by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP was arbitrary and dehors the Land Policy Guidelines issued by the Government. The same have been assailed also on the ground that the KPT could not have proposed the categorization/re-categorization of the lands on the basis of use, and the TAMP should not have accepted the same in toto for the purpose of fixing the scale of rates under Section 49 of the said Act. The challenge is als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs conferred under Section 111 of the said Act deserves to be made. Clause-5 of 2010 Policy and Clause-8 of 2014 Policy inter alia provided that every major port shall have a land use plan covering the entire land owned and/or managed by the Port. Such plans have to be approved by the Board and a copy thereof has to be forwarded to the Government. Thus, the combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Act and the said Clauses of the land policies, it emerges that use of the land and the purposes for which the land of the port would be used are the material considerations for the purposes of fixing scale of rates. It may be further noted that the market value of the land and the scale of rates to be recommended by the Port Trust to the TAMP have to be in consonance with the relevant directions given by the Central Government in the respective land policies. Clause 6.3(1)(e) of the Policy of 2010 provided that SoR should vary in accordance with the end use as reflected in the land use plan. Sub-clause (f) of the said Clause further provided that insofar as fixing of SoR for port land is concerned, the TAMP shall have the jurisdiction for any land both within the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said categorization proposed by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP in the 2011 order was not challenged by any of the petitioners till these petitions were filed in the years 2014-15 onwards. 41. Similar proposal was made by the KPT vide letter dated 23.4.2014 in the light of the policy of 2014. The KPT had submitted the said proposal for the valuation of land for the various categories of Kandla lands, i.e. A to G categories considered by the Land Valuation Committee. In the said proposal, the KPT had further categorized the Category-G into subcategories G-1 and G-2, in respect of which the TAMP had raised queries and the KPT had responded to the said queries. In this regard, the TAMP in its impugned order dated 13.11.2014 has observed in Paragraph ll(viii)(c) as under:- "11.(vii)(c)- "xxx With reference to the objection raised by users about new sub categorization G-1 and G-2 under category G, proposed in the current proposal as against a single category G in the land Order, the KPT has sought to clarify that the rates are to be fixed considering purpose also. So, all lessees, who have been allotted the land for "Liquid Tanks" have been categorized under G-1 & G-2 categories ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort land. It has been emphatically submitted that the said valuation of the land and the determination of scale of rate was arbitrary and irrational. As per the policy, the market value of the land was to be determined on the basis of highest accepted bid of the land, and the KPT had based its valuation relying on the 2005 tender submitted by the petitioner IMC for the purpose of making proposal to the TAMP, however, the bids received by the KPT pursuant to the 2005 tender were not finalized and the said tender was subsequently cancelled as the payment model under the 2005 tender was changed from "premium-cum-lease rent structure", which was followed earlier to "single lump sum consideration in the form of a higher premium and token Re. 1/- lease structure". Therefore, according to them, the said bid having not been accepted by the KPT, it could not have been treated as the highest accepted bid of the land for the purpose of making proposal to the TAMP. According to them, even under the Policy of 2014, the use of the land being not relevant factor, the only factor which could have been accepted was the highest accepted tender amount, and in absence of such highest accepted tender a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulatory Commission Vs. CESC Limited, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715 was dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of determination of tariff by the State Commission and applicability of principles of natural justice. It was held inter alia that price fixation is in the nature of a legislative action, and no rule of natural justice is applicable, unless statute itself provided for the same and the power of judicial review could hardly be invoked in interfering such fixation. 49. In yet one more judgment in case of Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2003 (1) SCC 341, the Supreme Court while examining the scope of judicial scrutiny in the matters of price fixation governed by the statutory provisions, observed as under:- "15. This Court was examining the scope of judicial scrutiny in the matters of price fixation where it was governed by statutory provisions. The scope of judicial scrutiny would be far less where the price fixation is not governed by the statute or a statutory order. Where the legislature has prescribed the factors which should be taken into consideration and which should guide the determination of price, the courts would exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory directions in the form of policies issued by the Central Government under Section 111 of the said Act. The Policy of 2010 as well as the subsequent policy of 2014 issued under Section 111 of the said Act had laid down the factors to be taken into consideration and the procedure to be followed for the purpose of determining the market value and the scale of rates. So far as the Policy of 2010 is concerned, Clause 6.3 provided that the SoR for port land will be recommended to the TAMP by a Committee as decided by the Board headed by the Chairman of the Port Trust. The said Committee may take into account the applicable factors from amongst the factors mentioned therein to determine the market value of the port land. One of the factors mentioned therein was "the highest accepted tender" of port land for similar transactions. The other factor was the rate arrived at by an approved valuer appointed for the purpose by the port. It was stated therein that the scale of rates shall be arrived at, taking 6% of the market value as the rent per annum. It also provided that the SoR should vary in accordance with the purpose of land use. In the light of the said provisions contained in the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, fixing the reserve price and the market value of the land w.e.f. 1.1.2014 for the Categories A to G, and accordingly the KPT had sought approval of the same from the TAMP. The summary of the recommendations of land valuation committee and the proposal of the KPT based on the said recommendations has been reproduced by the TAMP in its order dated 13.11.2014. The said proposal of the KPT has been elaborately discussed and considered, and after having been satisfied, has been accepted by the TAMP. 54. It is pertinent to note that on both the occasion, the KPT had made its proposals on the basis of the rates arrived by the approved valuer appointed for the purpose by the port. The said reports of the valuers were approved by the land valuation committee and the Board of Trustees of KPT, as contemplated in both the policy guidelines. The said policy guidelines do not mandate a specific preference to any particular method out of the methods prescribed in the respective clauses for determination of the market value and the SoR. Hence, the KPT was absolutely justified in relying upon the rates arrived at by the approved valuers on both the occasions. As stated in the TAMP order of 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the settled legal position, it is not permissible for the Court to go into the minute details of the factors considered by the statutory authority and substitute its own decision in place of the decision taken by the authority constituted under the Act. 56. There could not be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 293 relied upon by the learned Advocates for the petitioners to the effect that the public body even while dealing with its tenants must act in public interest and an infraction of their duty is amenable to examination either in civil suit or in writ jurisdiction. Every action of the State or as instrumentality of the State, must be informed by reason and the actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it has been further observed in the said judgment that there is always a presumption that a governmental action is reasonable and in public interest. It is for the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a decision taken by a constituted authority simply because the decision sought to be substituted is a better one. Learned Addl. Solicitor General, in our opinion, is therefore right in contending that the appellant should not be allowed to contend that the decision of the Bombay Port Trust to allot the plot to the major holder is not one of the feasible means of achieving the objectives of development. It was not open to the appellant to contend that the Bombay Port Trust could have framed a better policy in a way in which both the goals, development and non-eviction of existing tenants, could have been achieved." 57. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that during the period of lease, the landlord i.e. KPT which is an instrumentality of State, could not require the petitioners to pay the rent higher than what was agreed between them. As held by Supreme Court in case of NSSO Vs. Champa Properties Limited, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 451, where the contract prescribes a rent for the period of lease, the same being agreed rent, it is binding on the parties. If the lease provides for revision of rents periodically and specifies the meth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd method provided under the land policies and the TAMP had rightly relied upon the said market value for framing the SoR under Section 49 of the said Act. Such fixation did not suffer from vice of arbitrariness or from procedural impropriety. Re: Retrospectivity;- 60. This takes the Court to the next pivotal question as to whether the KPT could have proposed and the TAMP could have accepted the said proposal of giving retrospective effect to the SoR fixed by the TAMP i.e. making them effective for three consecutive slabs from July 1999 to 31.12.2003, 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2008, and 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 as per the impugned order dated 25.3.2011. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi for the KPT, had sought to submit that the liability i.e. 6% of the market value, the methodology i.e. on the basis of the market value, and the periodicity i.e. every five years was already fixed and imposed, and the only component remaining was the determination of market value and the scale of rates by the TAMP after considering the views of stake holders. Therefore, according to him, the obligation to pay at the revised rates every five years, and not to pay as and when quantified at varying peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said Act, though in certain cases the lands have been allotted only on the letter of allotment without execution of the lease deed, as has been done in case of SCA No. 2535 of 2017. In the said case the letter of allotment was issued on 27.10.1995 in favour of M/s. Unit Storage and Tankers Terminals Ltd., the predecessor of the petitioner IMC. The said allotment was subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in its annexure. One of the conditions as mentioned in Clause 9 thereof was that the ground rent fixed for plot shall be revised/enhanced/refixed at the option of the lessor at the end of every five years on or after 1st January. The ground rent will be revised on the basis of market value prevailing at the time of revision of ground rent. The allottee shall pay the ground rent at the revised rate from the date of revision. In other cases, where the lease deeds were executed like in case of SCA No. 2538 of 2017 filed by IMC, the Clause 7 of the lease deed executed by the KPT in favour of M/s. Indian Molasses Company, stipulated that the ground rent at the option of the lessor, be revised and refixed at the end of every ten years, subject to the condition that the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examining the issue as to whether the regulations framed by the executive council of a University constituted under the Maharishi Dayanand University Act, could have given retrospective effect or retroactive operation, had held that in absence of any provision contained in the legislative Act, a delegatee cannot make a delegated legislation with retrospective effect. 64. In case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 620 also it has been held that it is beyond any cavil that a subordinate legislation can be given a retrospective effect and retroactive operation, if any power in this behalf is contained in the main Act. 65. The Supreme Court in case of J. Jayalalithaa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401, reiterated the proposition of law that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lapse of nine years, and therefore, the TAMP vide its order dated 2.4.2008 had directed the KPT to formulate suitable revision proposal for Kandla land, and in the said backdrop, the KPT on 19.4.2010 submitted the proposal for revision of rate structure. From the said observation itself it clearly transpires that there was absolutely lethargic and a very lackadaisical approach on the part of the KPT in not sending the proposal for revision of SoR for about nine years. 68. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners the party cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of its own wrong. At this juncture, it would apposite to refer the Latin maxim - Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet meaning thereby, no party can take undue advantage of its own wrong. The Supreme Court in case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447, has held that man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to be favourable in the interpretation of law. He who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. Hence, if the KPT had failed to make proposal on ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Central Government. As per the Land Policies issued by the Central Government from time to time under Section 111 of the said Act, the renewals of leases were to be governed by the relevant clauses of the said Policies, relating to the lands within the customs bonded area and the lands falling outside the customs bonded area. It is trite to say that renewal of lease cannot be claimed by the lessee as a matter of right, inasmuch as the primary requirement for considering the request for renewals would be the existence of a valid lease in favour of the lessee and that there should not be any outstanding dues payable by the lessees. Out of the petitioners herein, the petitioner IMC of SCA No. 2538 of 2017, the petitioner IOC in SCA No. 13409 of 2014, the petitioner Tankers' Association in SCA No. 10306 of 2015, the petitioner Avean in SCA No. 2905 of 2015, the petitioner Laxmi Motors in SCA No. 16225 of 2013, the petitioner IFFCO in SCA 673 of 2014 and SCA No. 2607 of 2012 and the petitioner Kesar Terminals in SCA No. 11497 of 2015, No. 10892 of 2016, No. 10891 of 2016 and No. 10730 of 2016, have prayed for the renewal of their respective leases. 71. Before examining the indiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nifying assent on its part. The relevant paras 18 and 19 of the case are extracted below:- "18. We fully agree with the High Court and the first appellate court below that on expiry of period of lease, mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the lease premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying "assent" to the continuance of the lease even after expiry of lease period. To the legal notice seeking renewal of lease, the lessor gave no reply. The agreement of renewal contained in clause (7) read with clause (9) required fulfillment of two conditions: first, the exercise of option of renewal by the lessee before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local mukhia or panchas of the village. The aforesaid renewal clauses (7) and (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression "agreement to the contrary" used in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under the aforesaid clauses option to seek renewal was to be exercised before expiry of the lease and on specified cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nazul Land Rules and in the light of Shanti Prasad Devi, Sarup Singh Gupta and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. cases (supra), there cannot be an automatic renewal of lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time and also by issuing notice terminating the lease. Merely accepting the amount towards the rent by the office of the DDA after expiry of the lease period shall not be construed as renewal of lease of the premises in question, in favour of the original lessee, for another period of 20 years as contended by the respondent." 73. Applying the afore-stated position of law to the facts of the present cases, let us examine the individual case of the petitioners who have claimed renewal of their leases. In case of M/s. IMC in SCA No. 2538 of 2017, it appears that the petitioner had requested the KPT to renew the lease deed in accordance with the Clause-8 of the lease deed by its letter dated 15.5.2008, however, the said request appears to have been declined by the KPT vide the letter dated 8th October, 2013 on the ground that the land was required for KPT's own use. Thereafter the KPT had stated vide the letter dated 16.3.2015 that the request of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases of the petitioner. It may also be noted that the duration of the lease in respect of some of the plots has already expired, whereas the lease is still continuing and is expiring in the year 2020 and 2023 in respect of two plots. Hence, it will be open for the IOC to make necessary application for renewal of lease in respect of those two plots whose lease period has not expired and it will be open for the KPT to decide the same in accordance with law, however, no direction to renew the lease in respect of the plots whose term has already expired, could be issued as prayed for. 75. In case of SCA No. 10306 of 2015 filed by the petitioner Tankers' Association, there was no clause for renewal in the letter of allotment issued on 24.9.21982. The term of the lease has also expired in 2013. Hence, the petitioner who is unauthorized occupant after the expiry of lease period could not seek as a matter of right the direction to renew the lease. 76. In case of SCA No. 16225 of 2013 filed by Laxmi Motors, it appears that the KPT had already initiated action under the Public Premises Act, treating it to be an unauthorized occupant on the expiry of lease period in 2013. The eviction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the petitioner that as per Clause 5.2.1.2 of 2004 Policy, the port was empowered to renew the lease in favour of existing lessee at terms to be approved by the Board without public auction/tender. However, the said submission cannot be accepted. As per the said clause relied upon by the learned Advocate, if the option for renewal was not provided in the lease agreement, the port at its discretion could decide to grant a fresh lease in favour of the existing lessee at the terms to be approved by the Board without public auction/tender. In the instant case, there was no option in the lease deed for renewal, and as per the KPT's reply it was decided by way of policy to resort to public auction for allotment of plots. The discretionary decision of the KPT not to renew the lease being in consonance with the land policy of 2004 and later policies, no direction to renew the lease of the petitioner could be given as prayed for. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER;- 80. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions and findings may be concluded as under:- (i) The Land Policies of 2010 and 2014 in respect of the Port lands issued by the Central Government under Section 111 of the MPT Act, are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poration (I) Limited; Special Civil Application No. 372 of 2016 filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; Special Civil Application No. 16225 of 2013 filed by M/s. Laxmi Motors; and Special Civil Application No. 10306 of 2015 filed by The Tanker Owners & Operations Association: The impugned order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the TAMP and published vide the Notification dated 11.5.2011 under Section 49 of the Major Port Trusts Act, is partly set aside to the extent it approves the SoR with retrospective effect from July 1999. The said order to the extent it approves the SoR for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 is confirmed. The demand Notices, if any, issued against the petitioners based on the said order shall stand set aside, however, the KPT shall be at liberty to issue fresh demand Notices. Rest of the prayers made in each of the petitions are rejected. The petitions stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. (II) Special Civil Application Nos. 2535 of 2017, 2536 of 2017 filed by M/s. IMC Limited; Special Civil Application No. 2537 of 2017 filed by M/s. JRE Tank Terminals Private Limited; Special Civil Application Nos. 11497 of 2015, 10730 of 2016, 10891 of 2....