9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1980 - HC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of Notification dated 11.5.2011 and the Notification dated 4.12.2014 issued by the respondent Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) constituted under Section 47A of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - use of the lands belonging to the Kandla Port Trust - non-payment of the lease rentals as per the scale of rates framed by the TAMP under the impugned notifications - non-payment of the compensatory bills - prayer for renewal of leases - HELD THAT - The Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, considering the importance of the lands belonging to the Port Trusts and considering the provisions contained 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. The upshot of the 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 legal, valid and binding to the respondent KPT and the TAMP. (ii) No interference is called for in the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the TAMP and published vide the Notification dated 4.12.2014 under Section 49 of the said Act. The SoR framed by the TAMP shall be effective from 1.1.2014 as directed in the said order. The said order stands confirmed accordingly. The demand notices, if any issued to the petitioners based on the said order also stand confirmed accordingly. (iii) The order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the TAMP and published vide Notification dated 11.5.2011 is partly set aside to the extent it approves the SoR with retroactive effect from July 1999. The SoR approved by the TAMP for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 as per the said order are confirmed. The order stands modified accordingly. The demand notices, if any issued by the KPT based on the said order shall stand set aside. However, the KPT shall be at liberty to issue fresh demand notices as per the modified order and take actions or file proceedings against the defaulters, in accordance with law. (iv) The Renewal of lease in respect of the port land is governed by the land policies issued by the Central Government and cannot be claimed by the lessee as a matter of right. There could not be any automatic renewal of lease on the expiry of lease period. The port land being public premises, if the lease is not renewed by the lessor KPT after the expiry of lease period, the status of lessee in respect of the subject land becomes that of an unauthorized occupant. Mere acceptance of rent by the lessor KPT for subsequent period during which the lessee has continued to occupy the public premises, could not be construed to be the conduct signifying assent on the part of lessor. 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Land Policies of 2010 and 2014. 2. Validity of the TAMP orders dated 25.3.2011 and 13.11.2014. 3. Entitlement of the petitioners to claim renewal of their respective leases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Land Policies of 2010 and 2014: The Land Policies issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, are legal, valid, and binding on the respondent KPT and the TAMP. The policies were issued after a systematic process of consultation and consideration of objections/suggestions from stakeholders. The Court found no element of arbitrariness in the policies that would require them to be declared as arbitrary or bad in law. 2. Validity of the TAMP Orders: Order dated 25.3.2011: The TAMP order dated 25.3.2011, which approved the SoR with retrospective effect from July 1999, was partly set aside. The Court held that the TAMP did not have the authority to revise the SoR with retrospective effect in the absence of any specific provision in the Act or the Land Policies. The order was confirmed only to the extent it approved the SoR for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013. The demand notices issued based on the said order were set aside, with liberty granted to KPT to issue fresh demand notices as per the modified order. Order dated 13.11.2014: The TAMP order dated 13.11.2014, which framed the SoR effective from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018, was found to be in consonance with the Land Policy of 2014 and was confirmed. The demand notices issued based on the said order were also confirmed. 3. Entitlement to Renewal of Leases: The renewal of leases in respect of port land is governed by the Land Policies issued by the Central Government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court emphasized that there could not be any automatic renewal of lease on the expiry of the lease period. The status of the lessee in respect of public premises becomes that of an unauthorized occupant if the lease is not renewed after the expiry of the lease period. Mere acceptance of rent by the lessor for the subsequent period does not signify assent to the continuance of the lease. The Court examined individual cases of the petitioners and concluded that no direction to renew the leases could be issued as prayed for by the petitioners. Final Conclusions and Order: (I) Special Civil Application Nos. 2538 of 2017, 6909 of 2018, 16530 of 2013, 2905 of 2015, 2607 of 2012, 673 of 2014, 13409 of 2014, 9342 of 2015, 372 of 2016, 16225 of 2013, and 10306 of 2015: The TAMP order dated 25.3.2011 is partly set aside to the extent it approves the SoR with retrospective effect from July 1999. The order is confirmed for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013. Demand notices based on the said order are set aside, with liberty to KPT to issue fresh notices. Other prayers are rejected. The petitions are partly allowed to this extent. (II) Special Civil Application Nos. 2535 of 2017, 2536 of 2017, 2537 of 2017, 11497 of 2015, 10730 of 2016, 10891 of 2016, 10892 of 2016, 8538 of 2016, 13371 of 2013, and 10611 of 2016: The petitioners have no legally enforceable right in respect of the subject plots and have no locus standi to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. Demand notices based on the TAMP order dated 25.3.2011 are set aside, with liberty to KPT to issue fresh notices. The petitions are disposed of. (III) Special Civil Application Nos. 5218 of 2014, 5219 of 2014, 5222 of 2014, 5223 of 2014, 5224 of 2014, 10983 of 2015, and 10984 of 2015: The petitioner PSL Limited has already surrendered all the subject lands. The petitions are dismissed. Interim Orders: Any interim orders in force are vacated forthwith. Proceedings initiated and pending against any petitioners under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, shall proceed in accordance with law. Observations: The Court observed the lethargic and lackadaisical approach adopted by the officers of the KPT in not taking timely decisions, resulting in numerous litigations. The competent authority is expected to take appropriate actions against the errant officers. Direction to Office: The office is directed to send a copy of the order to the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping (Port Wing), New Delhi.
|
