PALAKKAD RUBBERS Vs. GM, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and presently governed by the Companies Act, 2013. They say that, they were allotted, on higher purchase, an extent of five Acres of land in the Industrial Development Area, Kanjikkode, Palakkad, through Ext.P1, as early as on 12/7/1994; pursuant to which, Ext.P2 agreement was entered into with the Manager of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad, binding themselves as to the terms of such allotment.

(2.) The petitioner says that, as per Ext.P2 agreement, they were to pay the total value of the plot, namely Rs.4,14,000.00, in 10 equal annual installments, along with 6.5% interest, commencing from 30/8/1995; and that they paid off the said amount without breach. They say that this is manifest from Exts.P3 and P4 communications issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre on 26/8/2008 and 19/10/2009 respectively, unequivocally certifying that they have paid off the entire amount of Rs.9,06,000.00, being the land value and interest and are thus eligible to get 'Patta' with respect to the land in question, subject to the clearing of balance of the land cost, that may be demanded in future. They say that no such demand was made, thus demonstrating that the value paid by them was the full one; and that subsequently, they were also allowed to mortgage the said land for the purpose of raising capital through outside funding.

(3.) The petitioner says that, subsequently on 23/1/2020, they made a request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Industries Centre, so as to enable them to obtain a loan on the strength of the property, but that rather strangely, the same was rejected through Ext.P15 saying that, as per the latest Rules governing the allotment, namely G.O(MS)No.8/2020/ID (hereinafter referred to as the '2020 Rules'), which came into force on 8/1/2020, their request cannot be acceded to, because by the change of their share holding will have to be construed as being a 'transfer', which is impermissible.