2011 (9) TMI 1254 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order of resuming unutilized portion of land by SIPCOT u/s lease conditions.

The Petitioner, an allottee of a plot in SIPCOT Industrial Park, challenged an order by SIPCOT to resume unutilized land. The lease conditions stipulated that failure to comply could result in cancellation of lease. The Petitioner was found to have not utilized the land as per the conditions of the lease, leading to the challenge of the order (Para 1).

The lease conditions required the allottee to use the land for the designated purpose and commence construction within specified timeframes. Failure to comply could result in cancellation of the allotment. The Petitioner received a notice for violating these conditions and was asked to show cause (Para 2).

The lease was executed in 2003, and after five years, a notice was issued to the Petitioner for non-compliance with the allotment conditions. The Petitioner responded, stating their need for the entire land and their expansion plans, requesting additional time for completion of construction (Para 3-4).

Despite the Petitioner's submissions, SIPCOT decided to resume the unutilized portion of land, leading to the challenged order. The Court noted that the transaction was contractual and the conditions were violated, thus declining to entertain the petition to modify the lease conditions (Para 5-7).

Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that disputes arising from contractual breaches should be settled through civil suits or arbitration, not through writ petitions. The Court cannot interpret contractual terms under Article 226 jurisdiction (Para 8-9).

Referring to another Supreme Court case, the Court highlighted that it cannot interfere with the actions of a corporation unless there is a statutory violation or unfairness. The Court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the Petitioner to file an explanation within an extended timeframe (Para 10).