GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
Dated
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee(ILMAC)
held on 25.01.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was
convened on 25.01.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member- Convener
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member
Sh. Sanjay Sharma, AAO, Represented F.O. – Member
Sh Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager, DSIIDC – Member
The cases discussed were as under:1
The case of plot No.M-22, Badli Industrial Estate was placed before ILMAC by the
concerned branch with respect to the refund of conversion charges and aspect of levy of unearned
increase on the share of Shri Rattan Singh Anand. Shri Bhupinder Singh Anand, one of the
partner of this firm is present before the Committee during the hearing. It is observed that the
applicant has applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold and has deposited an amount of
Rs.12,24,650/- as conversion charges, however, his case for conversion could not be considered due
to ongoing fresh construction at the said premises. After obtaining the approval of Hon’ble L.G.,
the department has informed the applicant that his conversion application could not be considered
at present and he may apply afresh after construction on the plot and start manufacturing
activities. Now, the applicant has recommended for refund of conversion charges and while
processing the case, it was observed that there is a transfer of share from grand father to grand son
which did not fall in the definition of family. However, the applicant states that the shares of Shri
Rattan Singh Anand were not transferred directly to his grand son namely Shri Gurmeet Singh
Anand and Shri Kanwar Deep Singh Anand. There was a family settlement on 31st March, 1994
and as per this settlement, the share of Shri Rattan Singh Anand were devolved upon Shri
Bhupinder Singh Anand and subsequently, Shri Bhupinder Singh Anand has transferred his shares
to his son.
Therefore, the changes are within family and he should be allowed refund of
conversion charges paid by him. The ILMAC, after considering the issue, recommends to allow
refund of conversion charges paid by the applicant after ensuring that the changes/transfer in
shares are within family as per L.M.G.
2.
The matter of plot No.1425, Narela Industrial Complex was taken up in the Committee. Shri
Jaspal Singh, the present purchaser of the plot present before the Committee during the hearing
proceedings. In this case the plot was allotted to Shri Hari krishan gupta in the year 1990 and
possession was handed over in 1994. Shri Hari krishan Gupta sold the plot to Shri Shri Suresh
Kumar Goyal and Laxman Dass Goyal vide GPA and SPA on 19th May, 1999. Subsequently, Shri
Suresh Kumar Goyal and Shri Laxman Dass Goyal have sold this plot to Shri Jaspal Singh, the
present purchaser vide GPA and agreement to sell dated 15.10.99. Shri Hari Krishan Gupta has
expired on 9th May, 2005. However, there is a undated letter received in the Narela Allotment
Cell, wherein a request has been made to issue NOC for construction on the plot.
The present
purchaser Shri Jaspal Singh, in this regard states that this letter is someone mischief as Shri Hari
Krishan Gupta has already expired and there is no question of his applying for NOC. He further
states that he is a legal occupier of the plot in question other then the GPA and agreement to sell.
Apart from the GPA and Agreement to Sell, Shri Jaspal Singh is in possession of the `WILL’
executed by Shri Hari Krishan Gupta in favour of Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal and Shri Laxman Dass
Goyal and registered with sub-registrar on 19.5.1999 and another `WILL’ executed by Suresh
Kumar Goyal and Shri Laxman Dass Goyal in favour of Jaspal Singh duly registered on 15.10.1999.
In view of the above documentary evidence, the ILMAC is of the considered view that the
branch may satisfy itself of the authenticity of the documents by checking the original documents
then submit the case to the competent authority for change in constitution. UEI charges will be
applicable in this case as per provisions of Land Management Guidelines, being sale out of the
family and regularization charges as per clause 2(iii) of the Land Management Guidelines will also
be charged. Since the applicant has already applied under immensity scheme of the Corporation
for execution of lease deed and issue of NOC for construction, the branch may process for lease
deed and NOC after change in constitution as per the relevant guidelines in this regard.
3.
Chander Fabrics, relocation application No.12554. Shri S.C. Gupta, the applicant appeared
before the Committee during hearing proceedings. The applicant has filed an application for
obtaining an alternative plot under the relocation scheme in the year 1996. Upon this application,
the department has processed for ascertaining the commencement of manufacturing/industrial
activities. In this regard, initially the Screening Committee kept his application in the eligible list
and subsequently the Appeal Committee had rejected this case vide order dated 24.7.2009. Then
onwards, the applicant has stated that he is regularly taking up this matter of allotment of plot
under the relocation scheme with the department. At the outset, it is observed that the rejection
has been made without hearing the applicant. Now the applicant is submitting that he has got the
required documents. It is, therefore, the relocation branch may go through the documents and
place complete facts before ILMAC on 8.2.2010.
4.
M/s Navjeevan Associates Pvt. Ltd. has applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold in
respect of plot No.207, Okhla Industrial Estate on dated 12.10.2006. The case was processed and
deficiencies were communicated to the applicant vide this office letter dated 12th March 2007
followed by reminder dated 7.1.2009. While the case was under process, M/s N.D. TV submitted
an application along with a declaration by M/S Navjeevan Associates Pvt. Ltd. stating that free
hold should be allowed in favour of M/s ND TV Ltd. and conversion charges paid by M/S
Navjeevan Associates Pvt. Ltd. may be transferred by M/s ND TV account. This means the transfer
of conversion charges paid by M/S Navjeevan Associates Pvt. Ltd. is to be adjusted against the free
hold application of M/s ND TV which has been submitted to this office on December, 2009
without paying conversion charges. The present applicant has not deposited any amount under
the impression that the conversion charges paid by the first applicant M/S Navjeevan Associates
Pvt. Ltd. is to be adjusted against the application of the present applicant. The matter came up
before ILMAC and is recommended by ILMAC in the meeting dated 18.1.2010 as in case of S-53,
Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate. Accordingly this case is also required to be placed before the
Competent Authority i.e. Commissioner of Industries to resolve the issue of adjustment of
conversion charges, and further if any difference is required to be charged, depending upon the
decision the demand is to be raised.
5.
The case of plot No.290 FIE Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was
considered by ILMAC as per recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Harpal Singh Chopra
was present before the Committee during the course of hearing. It was observed that applicants
are subsequent purchaser through registered GPA and agreement to sell executed in 1992. The
construction is reported to be within the last extension granted to the applicant and nothing
adverse has been reported by Estate Manager.
Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow
conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicant subject to realization of pending
dues, if any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
6.
Shed No.92, Okhla Industrial Estate. The issue is related to raising the demand towards
subletting and compound interest against the allottee as per policy. The matter came up before
ILMAC today. The case was earlier seen by the Committee in its meeting dated 20 th Oct., 2009.
The ILMAC recommended in the said meeting to charge subletting charges with interest as per
policy, as done in other similar cases. Subsequent to this, the Accounts Branch has calculated,
based on the facts on record, subletting charges which comes to Rs.5,98,086/- and up-to-date
compound interest comes to Rs.23,39,82,308/-, which is on very high side. The ILMAC is of the
considered view that the allottee should be called before Committee to hear personally before
raising the demand.
7.
The case of execution of lease deed in case of FFC Okhla after payment of higher purchase
cost paid by the allottees came up before the ILMAC today.
The format of the lease deed was
approved by the Hon’ble L.G. on 6th March, 2009. There are two issues which are to be finalized
(i) rate of interest in case of default in payment of lease rent. (ii) Lease rent to be charged on what
amount. The ILMAC discussed this issue and decide to recommend that as per order dated 31st
Jan., 2008 which clearly stipul
ates as under:-
“18% simple interest shall be charged on belated payment except in those cases where
specific rate of interest has been prescribed in the lease/rent agreement”.
This was approved by the Lessor i.e. Hon’ble L.G.. Accordingly, the ILMAC is of the
considered view that rate of inte4rest should be charged @ 18% simple where there is a delay in
payment of lease rent/ground rent.
As regards lease rent is to be fixed, as decided in past in hire purchase case of sheds of
Okhla Industrial Estate, actual land cost was the consideration for charging lease rent @ 2.5% of
the premium of the value of the plot. Accordingly, in this case also lease rent is to be charged on
proportionate land cost of individual flat. As regard restoration and 50% unearned increase, these
are futurestic query of accounts branch, which is to be decided under Land Management
Guidelines and depending upon the decision under Land Management Guidelines and will be
applicant in the relevant cases.
The recommendation is required to be submitted before
Commissioner of Industries for approval by the concerned branch.
8.
Shed No.113, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Estate. The case of applicant for mutation and
conversion was discussed in the ILMAC and noticed that after the allottee expired his wife Smt.
Abida Khatoon executed GPA in favour of Shri Mohinder Pal Singh Anand & Shri Jatinder Pal
Singh Anand. The agreement to sell is in favour of Smt. Veena Anand and Shri Jatinder Pal Singh.
Both these documents are of 12th December, 1994, whereas the letter of administration is in favour
of Smt. Abida Khatoon in respect of this property in probate case No.111/2007 Misc No.110/2008
in the court of Shri Ashwani Sarpal, ADJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi. In the given circumstances, the
ILMAC is of the considered view to call the applicant alongwith legal heir Abida Khatoon to be
present on 8.2.2010 before the ILMAC.
9.
Shed No.241, Okhla Industrial Estate M/s J.D. Exim Pvt. Ltd. has applied for conversion from
lease hold to free hold in respect of above plot on dated 25th July, 2006. The case was processed
and a deficiency letter was issued on 8.6.2007 (C-272). Subsequent to this, the applicant submitted
some documents. Further it was found that unit is not in manufacturing. The premises was
unauthorizedly subletted and encroached on government land for which show cause notice was
issued on 25.9.2008. The Estate Manager vide his report (C-315) dated 19th Nov., 2009 has
reported that the entire plot has been sold to Shri Dharampur Sugar Mills. The Committee is of
the considered view that a clarification is required to ber sought from the applicant depending
upon the reply and documentary proof. The case is required to be decided depending upon the
facts submitted.
10.
Flat No.C-103, FFC Okhla.
The case is of change in constitution in favour of Shri Vinod
Kumar Sharma. The original allottee Shri Viond Kumar Sharma and the applicant entered for
partnership vide partnership deed dated 26.9.2005. Subsequently they dissolved the partnership
vide dissolution deed dated 17.10.2005 and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma become sole proprietor of
the firm M/s Cooling Corporation. Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma has submitted an indemnity bond
duly registered with the sub-registrar and other relevant documents for change in Constitution.
The ILMAC decided to recommend this case for change in constitution in favour of Shri Vinod
Kumar sharma subject to payment of compostion charges and any other dues as well as ensuring
that the change is within the frame work of Land Management Guidelines.
11.
The case of M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. relocation application No.43862 was considered by the
ILMAC for change in constitution. Proprietor Smt. Ram Shri has expired and now her widow
daughter has requested for mutation of plot in her favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis of
documents submitted by the applicant, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Late Smt.
Ram Shri and allow induction of daughter Smt. Rekha Gupta as proprietor of the firm without UEI
charges as the transfer is within the legal heir of the deceased subject to realization of dues, if any,
as per Land Management Guidelines.
12. The case of M/s Narang Tin Industries relocation application No.39730 was considered by the
ILMAC for change in constitution. Proprietor Sh. Sudershan Kumar Narang has expired and now
his three sons have requested mutation of plot in their favour as partnmers of the firm. On the
basis of documents submitted by the applicants, the Committee recommends deletion of name of
Late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Narang and allow induction of his sons as partners of the firm without
UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heir of the deceased subject to realization of dues, if
any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
13. The case of M/s J.J. Industries relocation application No.5094 was considered by the ILMAC for
change in constitution. Earlier there were two partners (mother & son) now mother has expired
and now her son Sh. Harmohinder Singh has requested for mutation of plot in his favour as
proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, the Committee
recommends deletion of name of Late Smt. Joginder Kaur and allow induction of his son as
proprietor of the firm without UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heir of the deceased
subject to realization of dues, if any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
14.
The case of M/s Harish Metal Work relocation application No.7566 was considered by the
ILMAC for change in constitution. Proprietor Sh. Nem Chand Jain has expired and now his son
has requested for mutation of plot in his favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis of
documents submitted by the applicant, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Late Sh.
Nem Chand Jain and allow induction of his son Shri Harish Jain as proprietor of the firm without
UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heir of the deceased subject to realization of dues, if
any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
15.
The case of M/s Rajeev Publicity Co. relocation application No.14271 was considered by the
ILMAC for change in constitution. Earlier there were two partners (real brothers) now one
brother has retired and second brother Sh. Satya Pal Sharma has requested for transfer of plot in
his favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, the
Committee recommends deletion of name of retired partner Sh. Rajeev Sharma and allow
induction of his brother as proprietor of the firm without UEI charges as the transfer is within the
family subject to realization of dues, if any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
16.
The case of shop No.303, FC-VII at NAC was considered by the ILMAC for change in
constitution. Proprietor Sh. Anar Singh has expired and now his son has requested for
mutation of plot in his favour as proprietor of the shop. On the basis of documents
submitted by the applicant, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Late Sh.
Anar Singh and allow induction of his son Shri Neelam Saini as proprietor of the shop
without UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heir of the deceased subject to
realization of dues, if any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
17.
The case for Plot No.313, F.I.E., Patparganj for consideration of appeal for restoration of
lease cancelled was considered as per the recommendations of concerned Branch. It is
observed that the lease deed was executed on 25/9/91 which was subsequently cancelled
vide orders dated 4/6/99 due to subletting of the premises by the allottee to M/s
Pidilight Industries Limited for use of godown of fevicol. The appeal filed by the
applicant on 16/8/99 was also rejected vide letter dated 4/10/02. The applicant has
subsequently filed a case in Hon’ble High Court which has been disposed of with the
directions to maintain a statuesquo with respect to the premises till the matter is finally
decided by Hon’ble L.G. who was also directed by the Hon’ble Court to rehear the
appeal of the petitioner after granting him an opportunity of hearing as per orders of
Hon’ble High Court dated 11/4/02.
The applicant has also filed application for
conversion from leasehold to freehold and as per the guidelines the department has
informed the applicant that the same will be processed if & only after the allotment is
restored by the competent.
Accordingly, the ILMAC recommends to forward the
appeal with comments of the Branch to the Hon’ble L.G. for consideration and
appropriate decision in the matter as per guidelines.
18. The case of plot No.376 F.I.E., Patparganj for conversion of leasehold to freehold in favors
of Sh. Manjeet Singh, original allottee was considered as per the recommendations of
concerned Branch it is observed that the lease deed was executed on 19-7-93 whereas
the construction has been completed on 15/11/07 as per the occupancy certificate and
the applicant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,89,500/- towards composition charges as
calculated by Accounts Branch as per the orders dated 5/10/2009. Nothing adverse has
been reported by the E.M. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion in
favour of Sh.Manjeet Singh, the original allottee subject to realization of outstanding
dues, if any, as per guidelines. Sh.Manjeet Singh was also present in the meeting.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.
(M.S. Garg)
DCI - Convenor
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dated
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convenor
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. - Member
Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager(RL), DSIIDC – Member
Copy to:
1.
2.
3.
JCI (Relocation)
JCI (Land-Okhla)
PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)
DCI – Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
Dated
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee(ILMAC)
held on 15.02.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was
convened on 15.02.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
2. Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
3. Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member- Convener
4. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
5. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member
6. Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. – Member
7. Sh Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager, DSIIDC – Member
The cases discussed were as under:-
1.
Plot No. 75, FIE, Patparganj - The case for restoration of lease already determined for
various violations/conditions to execute the lease deed was considered by ILMAC as per
recommendations of concerned branch. Shri Udit Aggarwal, Director and the GPA holder who
has applied for conversion and attorney of original allottee Shri Inderjeet was present in the
meeting. It was observed that the appeal for restoration was filed by the applicant which was
under consideration of Hon’ble L.G and the office of Hon’ble L.G. has raised certain queries as per
note at N/151 of the concerned file. The branch has submitted reply to the queries and has
recommended to forward the same to Hon’ble L.G. for consideration on merit. ILMAC considered
to recommend the concerned branch to process the matter as per guidelines and place it before
Hon’ble L.G. with the approval of Commissioner of Industries. It was also observed that similar
case has also been decided by Hon’ble L.G. which may be placed on file.
2.
Plot No. 76, FIE, Patparganj - The case for restoration of lease already determined for
various violations/conditions to execute the lease deed was considered by ILM AC as per
recommendations of concerned branch. Shri R.N. Aggarwal, Director and attorney of original
allottee was present in the meeting. It was observed that the appeal for restoration was filed by
the applicant which was under consideration of Hon’ble L.G and the office of Hon’ble L.G. has
raised certain queries as per note at N/151 of the concerned file. The branch has submitted reply
to the queries and has recommended to forward the same to Hon’ble L.G. for consideration on
merit. ILMAC considered to recommend the concerned branch to process the matter as per
guidelines and place it before Hon’ble L.G. with the approval of Commissioner of Industries. It
was also observed that similar case has also been decided by Hon’ble L.G. which may be placed on
file.
3.
Plot No. 426, FIE, Patparganj – The case of Plot No. 426, FIE Patparganj for conversion from
lease hold to freehold was considered by ILMAC as per recommendations of the concerned
branch. The applicant is the original allottee of the plot. Shri Vijay Kapoor, General Manager of
the company was present in the meeting. It has been observed that nothing adverse has been
reported by Estate Manager and the composition charges as per order dated 5.10.09 has been paid
by the applicant for delayed construction. ILMAC recommend to allow conversion from lease
hold to free hold in favour of applicant, i.e. original allottee subject to payment of outstanding
dues, if any, as per guidelines.
4.
M/s Galtex Industries – The case of M/s Galtex Industries, Application No. 13608 for
allotment of industrial plot under relocation scheme was considered by ILMAC. It was informed
to the ILMAC that the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that it is partly covered in
H(a) category. The applicant has filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court which has
remanded the matter to this Department for re-examining the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the appellant had appeared before the then Appeal Committee on 20.10.09 and as per
the minutes of the then Appeal Committee dated 13.11.09 his case has not been allowed for
allotment of industrial plot considering the existing Relocation policy of not allotting the plot to
the unit existing in conforming area as the location of unit in Swaran Park, Udyog Nagar which
area is now notified for re-development plan. The applicant met the Commissioner of Industries
and accordingly the matter was placed before ILMAC (Appeal Committee) on 15.2.10. Shri
Dharam Chand, Partner of the above said unit was also present. He has countered the claim of the
department regarding his activity falling in H(a) category on the grounds that he was
manufacturing rubber/canvas footwear only and is not carrying any manufacturing activities as on
today because his rented premises at Swaran Park, Udyog Nagar was sealed in the year 2000, after
which he has vacated the premises and sold the machinery. He further states that the machinery
he now proposes to purchase will be as per latest technology and pollution free.
ILMAC
considered his request and recommends that his case may be re-examined and the matter be
referred to Policy Branch for confirming the fact that the premises now vacated by the applicant
falls in the redevelopment area or not. In due course the applicant will provide the copy of raw
materials purchased by him when he was manufacturing the items as well as the detailed
procedure and process involved with flowchart of every process involved in the manufacturing of
the rubber/canvas footwear carried out by him. After receipt of relevant information from the
applicant and necessary confirmation from the Policy Branch, the case may be placed before
ILMAC after 15 days.
5.
Plot No. 131, Narela Industrial Area was taken up in the ILMAC. The applicant and
petitioner in the High Court, Mr. Sanjiv Bhatia was also present in the meeting. The matter has
been examined and the recommendations of the concerned branch has been considered in this
case. The present applicant intimated the DSIIDC and requested for transfer of plot in his name on
25.6.2001. However, a demand letter with regard to the charges payable by the applicant for the
Change of Constitution could not be intimated by the Corporation to him at that time because of
the dispute raised by the original allottee, Mr. M.B.S. Jain. Now plot is to be transferred in the
name of Shri Sanjiv Bhatia in compliance to the orders of Hon’ble high Court of January,2008 and
January,2010. The question at this stage is that which date should be taken for calculating the UEI
charges. In this case the plot which was allotted in 1992 was first time sold on 18.4.94 and second
time on 7.8.1996. The present owner/purchaser, Shri Sanjiv Bhatia acquired it on 3 rd sale on
12.6.2001. After discussion of the matter, the ILMAC is of the view that the charges may be
calculated for all the sales/transactions as per the respective date/year of execution of the sale, i.e.
April,1994, August,1996 and June,2001 as per provision of Land Management Guidelines. Further,
regularization charges for late intimation will be applicable as per clause 2(iii) with of Land
Management Guidelines with regard to first and second sale, till June,2001 i.e. when the present
applicant intimated the transaction. Subject to the payment of the UEI charges and any other dues
as payable in accordance with policy, the branch concerned may process the case for change of
constitution in terms of the High Court order today itself. Further, the ILMAC recommends that
deadline set by the direction of the Hon’ble High Court be adhered to in order to avoid any
contempt. Accordingly, the concerned branch should take necessary action immediately.
6.
Plot No. 562, Narela Industrial Area was taken up by the ILMAC. Shri Sunil Charla on
behalf of the applicant firm, M/s Ambitious Pen Co. was present. ILMAC has perused the records
of the case and heard Shri Sunil Charla. He states that 75% share in the allottee partnership firm is
with Shri Sunil Charla whereas the remaining 25% share which was with Shri K.K. Charla, the
father of Shri Sunil Charla, has been transferred by him in the name of Mrs. Suraksha Charla, Wife
of Shri Sunil Charla through a probated will, as according to the Will, the share of Shri K.K. Charla
in M/s Stic Pens Ltd. and its sister concern will devolve upon his daughter-in-law, Ms. Suraksha
Charla, w/o Shri Sunil Charla. The applicant has submitted a certificate from his Chattered
Accountant stating that M/s Ambitious Pen Co. is a sister concern of M/s Stic Pens Ltd. and that
there is no outsider having any interest in any matter of M/s Ambitious Pen Co. The applicant has
also informed the shareholding of Stic Pens Ltd. Wherein the said company is entirely owned by
Shri Sunil Charla, his wife and their children. It is further observed that Mrs. Suraksha Charla has
become partner in M/s Ambitious Pen Co. along with Mr. Sunil Charla vide partnership deed
executed on 31/7/2002. Further, the Narela Branch has already taken UEI charges for the transfer
of 25% share of Shri K.K. Charla to Ms. Suraksha Charla.
In view of the above facts, ILMAC is of the view that the branch should effect the change of
constitution in favour of Shri Sunil Charla and his wife Smt. Suraksha Charla with the approval of
the competent authority as per the Land Management Guidelines and also execute the lease deed,
handover the possession and issue NOC for construction as the matter has already very much
delayed. An Indemnity Bond should be taken from the firm clarifying the shareholding details of
M/s Stic Pens Ltd. and M/s Ambitious Pen Co. and indemnifying the department against any
claims/damages in future.
7.
The case of M/s Varun India Products, Application No. 31866 for allotment of industrial plot
under Relocation scheme was considered by the ILMAC (Appeal Committee) on the basis of
recommendations of the Sub-Committee vide its report dated 3.2.10.
On the basis of
recommendations of the Sub-Committee, ILMAC(Appeal Committee) recommends that the case of
M/s Varun India Products may be considered for allotment of industrial plot under Relocation
Scheme for an area as per entitlement. Mr. Harish Uppal was also present and informed the
ILMAC(Appeal Committee) that he has applied for 100 Sq.mtrs plot only. ILMAC observed that in
Column-7 of the application form the applicant has mentioned the requirement of the plot as 100
sq.mtr size and because as per guidelines the minimum area to be allotted is 100 sq.mtr., ILMAC
recommends accordingly.
8.
Plot No. 201, FIE Patparganj- The case of Plot No. 201for conversion from lease hold to free
hold was considered by the ILMAC on the recommendations of concerned branch. The applicant
is the subsequent purchaser through chain of GPA and Agreement to Sell which is reported to be
complete.
Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager. Accordingly, ILMAC
recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to freehold in favour of agreement to sell holder
as per recommendations of concerned branch, subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any , as
per guidelines.
9. The case of Plot No. M-21, Badli Industrial Estate was considered by the ILMAC in continuation
of its earlier recommendations in its meeting held on 1.2.2010 when it was advised to the
concerned branch to go through the case and place in the next meeting. The concerned branch
has examined the facts of the case and has recommended the same for conversion from lease hold
to freehold in respect of the plot in favour of Shri Jagdish Rai in accordance with the opinion of
the Law Department and subject to
final decision
of the Hon’ble High Court in
CS(OS)No.505/2007. ILMAC accordingly recommends to allow conversion from leasehold to
freehold in favour of the original allottee, subject to furnishing of Indemnity Bond with respect to
loss/damage/claim, if any, as arising after final decision of the Hon’ble High Court in
CS(OS)NO.505/2007 and payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
10.
The case of S-51, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II was taken up by the ILMAC in which it
was observed that there is no clear recommendation from the concerned branch. It is, therefore, a
self contained note along with specific recommendations may be put up in the next ILMAC, i.e. on
22.2.10.
11.
Application No. 50955 of Relocation Branch of DSIIDC was placed before ILMAC regarding
change of constitution in the company. It is surprising to note that initially the two original
directors, Shri V.K. Khanna and Shri Anil Khanna were there. It is observed that the Relocation
Branch of DSIIDC
has brought some confusion that there is a change of Directorship and
accordingly the case was processed from 2004 onwards and ultimately it was found that there is no
change of any director and accordingly there is no question of undertaking any change of
constitution. In view of this observation the ILMAC strongly feel that in-charges of various land
branch shall examine the issue properly and the issues be placed before the ILMAC in a proper
perspective rather than placing the issue out of no issue.
12.
The case of Plot No. 15, FIE Patparganj for consideration of appeal for restoration of lease
deed was considered as per details provided by concerned branch. Since the matter of restoration
is the jurisdiction of Hon’ble L.G., ILMAC is of the view that the matter may be placed before
Hon’ble LG by the concerned branch giving all the facts of the case and as per direction of the
Hon’ble High Court.
13.
The case of M/s New Gandhi Optical Industries bearing application No.15527 was considered
by ILMAC for change of constitution.
Original allottee has expired and now his wife has
requested for mutation in her favour as Proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents
submitted by the party the Committee recommends deletion of name of Late Shri Devender Singh
and allows induction of his wife Smt. Harjeet Kaur as Proprietor without the payment of UEI
charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased as per LMG, subject to clearance of
dues, if any, and submission of conveyance deed.
14. The case of M/s Servomatic Controls bearing application No.1686 was considered by ILMAC for
change of constitution. Original allottee has expired and now his son has requested for mutation
in his favour as Proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the
Committee recommends deletion of name of Late Shri Satya Prakash Mittal and allows induction
of his son, Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal as Proprietor without the payment of UEI charges as the
transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased as per LMG, subject to clearance of dues, if any.
15. The case of M/s New Health Centre & Pan Centre bearing application No.4172 was considered
by ILMAC for change of constitution. Original allottee has expired and now his son has requested
for mutation in his favour as Proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the
party the Committee recommends deletion of name of Late Shri Dinesh Chand Goel and allows
induction of his son, Shri Gaurav Goel as Proprietor without the payment of UEI charges as the
transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased as per LMG, subject to clearance of dues, if any.
16.
The case of M/s Sonu Enterprises bearing Application No. 16667 was considered by ILMAC
for change of constitution. Earlier there were two partners out of which one has retired and the
continuing partner has requested for transfer of rights and interest in his favour as Proprietor of
the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the Committee recommends deletion
of name of Shri Umesh Kumar and allows induction of Shri Gulshan Kumar as Proprietor without
UEI charges as the transfer is within the family as per LMG, subject to realization of dues, if any.
17.
The case of M/s Bhagsons Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. bearing Application No. 833
was considered by ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were two directors. Later one
more director was inducted in the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the
Committee recommends induction of Shri Pramod Lakhani as Director alongwith the other two
continuing directors without UEI charges as the case is within the family as per LMG, subject to
realization of dues, if any.
18.
The case of M/s Sonia Thread Mills bearing Application No. 18429 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were two partners out of which one has retired
and the continuing partner has requested for transfer of rights and interest in his favour as
Proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the Committee
recommends deletion of name of Shri Hans Raj and allows induction of Shri Jaswant Lal as
Proprietor on payment of UEI charges as the transfer is outside the family as per LMG, subject to
realization of dues, if any, and submission of conveyance deed.
19. The case of M/s Shiv Kumar Naresh Kumar bearing Application No. 22206 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were two partners out of which one has retired
and the continuing partner has requested for transfer of rights and interest in his favour as
Proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the Committee
recommends deletion of name of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma and allows induction of Shri Naresh
Kumar Sharma as Proprietor on payment of UEI charges as the transfer is outside the family as per
LMG, subject to realization of dues, if any.
20. The case of M/s Steel Ways Enterprises bearing Application No. 22205 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were four partners out of which two have retired
and the continuing partners have requested for transfer of rights and interest in their favour as
Partners of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the Committee
recommends deletion of names of Smt. Raj Bala Sharma and Smt. Archana Sharma and allows
induction of Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma and Shri Ram Gopal Sharma as Partners on payment of
UEI charges as the transfer is outside the family as per LMG, subject to realization of dues, if any.
21. The case of M/s Darshan Plastics bearing Application No. 2639 was considered by the ILMAC
for change of constitution. Proprietor Smt, Sunita Suri inducted Smt. Manisha Suri as partner in
1997, later she retired in 1999. On the basis of the documents submitted by the party the
Committee recommends deletion of name of Smt. Sunita Suri and allows induction of Smt. Manish
Suri as Proprietor of the firm. The substitution and deletion was prior to allotment/demand letter,
hence no UEI shall be levied as per Clause No.1(vi) of LMG, subject to clearance of dues, if any.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.
(M.S. Garg)
DCI - Convenor
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dated
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convenor
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. - Member
Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager(RL), DSIIDC – Member
Copy to:
1.
2.
3.
JCI (Relocation)
JCI (Land-Okhla)
PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)
DCI – Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
Dated
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee(ILMAC)
held on 22.02.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was
convened on 22.02.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member- Convener
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. – Member
Sh Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager, DSIIDC – Member
The cases discussed were as under:1.
The lease of plot No.S-51, Phase-II Okhla Industrial Area was determined vide order
dated 17 March, 1992. The plot was allotted to Shri Vishnu Kumar. The allottee
preferred an appeal before the lessor in the year 1992 itself for restoration of lease.
Finally Hon’ble L.G. restored the lease in favour of the allottee vide order dated 1 st
August, 1996 subject to payment of restoration charges, payment against authorized
subletting etc. to the tune of Rs.6,94,846/-. The allottee did not pay the amount. On
dated 28th Dec., 2001, the allottee’s wife Smt. Sunita K. Nigam informed the department
that the allottee expired on 9th December, 2001 and the property is required to be
mutated in favour of his legal heir (C-304 on file). One Shri Shashi Prakash Chopra on
dated 5.6.2002 informed the department that he has purchased the property vide
registered power of attorney dated 2nd August, 2001 and agreement to sell also of the
same date (C-310 on file). The department wrote a letter to the allottee’s wife to pay
the arrears.
Shri Shashi Prakash Chopra informed the department that he is also
holding registered `WILL’ from the allottee in his favour concerning to the property in
question. The department allowed to process the case of transfer in favour of the
applicant/buyer as on record at page N/124 & N/145. The branch was of the considered
view to seek letter of administration from the competent court in favour of the
purchaser as there was claim and counter claim once by wife of the allottee. The issue
was placed before the ILMAC and the Committee is of the considered view that the
wife of the allottee did not pay the amount towards the restoration and other arrears
inspite of informing her vide office letter dated 14.11.2003.
Merely filing a letter
several years earlier cannot be concluded as a dispute or counterclaim. Moreover, the
`WILL’ is also in favour of the purchaser and as per policy circular dated 5.11.2007, the
mutation is required to be allowed first subject to the completion of necessary
formalities i.e. registered Indemnity Bond, Affidavit etc from Shashi Prakash Chopra.
The Committee recommends to allow mutation in favour of Shri Shashi Prakash Chopra
in whose favour the `WILL’ was executed (duly registered) by the allottee Shri Vishnu
Kumar.
2.
Shed No.E-113, Phase-III Okhla Industrial Estate. Smt Abida Khatoon along with Smt.
Veena Anand and Shri Mohinder pal Singh are present before the ILMAC.
Vide
minutes of the meeting dated 25.1.2010, ILMAC desired to call Smt. Abida Khatoon
who has executed GPA in favour Shri Mohinder Pal Singh and Shri Joginder Pal singh
Anand whereas mutation of the property after the death of the allottee was not made on
record in favour of Smt. Abida Khatoon as no documents were submitted regarding here
succeeding the property. Smt. Abide Khatoon obtained letter of administration in her
favour in probate case No.111/2007 Misc. No.110/2008 in the court of Shri Ashwani
Sarpal, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari. The ILMAC is of the considered view to
recommend to allow mutation in favour of Smt. Abida Khatoon thereafter process the
case of free hold on the basis of GPA and agreement to sell as submitted by the
applicant. Smt. Abida Khatoon who is present before the ILMAC stated that she has no
objection to further process the case for free hold in favour of the applicant.
3.
The case of plot No.63, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to
free hold was considered as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri
Suchivart Gupta, the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. It was observed that the
construction is reported to the within time as per house tax assessment dated 1.4.1987.
Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager. The GPA and agreement to
sell, first agreement and agreement to sell dated 16.2.2004 are registered as per
guidelines. Accordingly, ILMAC is recommended to allow conversion from lease hold
to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
4.
Plot No.B-50, FFC Jhandewalan.
On 21st December, 1998, the department
communicated conditional restoration order in pursuance of amnesty granted by
Hon’ble L.G. for restoration of allotment in favour of Shri Raj Kishore (the allottee)
subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- security deposit and Rs.2,04,095/- towards arrear.
The said letter was issued and sent through the respective Industrial Association of FFC
Jhandewalan. Subsequent to this recovery notices were issued for recovery of arrears as
the said amount of rent and interest was not paid. There was on going court case before
the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari in which the then Inspector of FFC
Jhandewalan submitted a statement before the court as below:-
“ It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the suit accommodation in this case
has been regularized in the name of the appellant and the letter of Regularization has
already been sent to the appellants. I have no objection in case the appellant withdraws
the appeal.”
The then inspector did not clarify to the court that the regularization was subject to
condition of payment of dues against the allottee and depositing of Rs.10,000/- security
money. As a result of statement, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn as it become
infructuous. Accordingly, the order was issued by the Ld. Additional District Judge vide
dated 4.1.1999. Subsequent to this, the department proceeded further before the Estate
Officer for eviction proceedings as the above stated amount was not received. Though
it was not mentioned whether the conditional restoration order was conveyed to the
allottee or not as it was sent through Association. The Estate Officer passed an eviction
order on dated 25.9.2003 in which it was clearly mentioned before implementing the
eviction order, clearance of Law Department is required to be obtained by the
department and clearance should be obtained from the Hon’ble Court with reference to
order dated 4.1.1999. the allottee filed suit against the eviction order vide suit No.PDA
61/08 and contempt of petition therein in the matter as to why the department has not
implemented the court order dated 4.1.1999 which was on the basis of the statement
given by the department that the issue related to regularization. Subsequent to this, the
department issued a regularization letter dated 12.2.2010 indicating dues towards rental,
interest amounting to Rs.4,04,870/- + utility charges Rs.63,750/-. The allottee was
present before ILMAC and he agreed to pay all the dues. Subsequently he has taken a
stand in the court that interest is not levyable. The said amount towards rent and
interest, after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,82,200/-, recovered through DCO. This
order was issued considering the earlier letter dated 21.12.1998 towards conditional
restoration was not served by the department to the applicant and amnesty
automatically stands extended. The matter came up before the Hon’ble District Judge
on 16th Feb., 2010 in which he has clearly directed/ordered as below:-
“It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a letter
has been issued regarding regularization/restoration of the premises, subject to payment
of certain amount along with 13% interest from the year 1999. The statement for
regularization was made and order was passed on 4.1.1999 by the court and therefore, it
cannot be said that the petitioner was in default. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner was not under any obligation to pay any interest, if he was ready and willing to
pay the amount, whatever was payable by him at the time of passing of the order on
4.1.1999.”
Going into the details and as per directions of the court, the ILMAC is of the
considered view that the demand raised vide letter dated 21.12.1998 is to be adjusted
against the payment received through DCO from time to time (letters issued to DCO on
dated 5.2.1997 and 29.7.1999). The rent, after the letter dated 27.12.1998, whatever was
due, was to be paid by the allottee well in time as the possession of the property was
with the allottee and he was generating business on the premises since the date of
allotment.
Though obligation to pay the rent is on the part of the allottee but
department do not accept any rent after cancellation, therefore, no interest is levyable
on delayed payment of rent after 21.12.98 to till date. The amount paid by the allottee
of Rs.1,82,200/- is to be adjusted against the demand of Rs.2,04,095/- and no further
interest is required to be levied against the arrears out of adjustment of Rs.2,04,095. The
rent is to be demand as on date which is arrear.
5.
Shed No.101, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Estate – M/s Mohindra Sports Works. The Estate
Manager has reported on file that the allottee’s son found working in the same premises,
though at no point of time the Estate Manager stated in past that what was the area is
occupied by the allottee’s son within the allottee’s premises. Subsequent to this, the
allottee expired on 20.5.1991 leaving `WILL”’ that after his death, the property will be
equally shared by the three sons.
On submission of relinquishment deed from two
sons, the department has allowed mutation in favour of Shri Raghubir Singh, one of the
son of the late allottee. The ILMAC is of the considered view that since the property
remained all alone within the family and allottee and by virtue of `WILL’ the late
allottee has given equal right to all his three sons, therefore, no subletting is levyable
against the allottee or applicant Shri Raghubir Singh who has requested for free hold in
his favour. Shri Raghubir Singh’s name is in the WILL who is one of the beneficiary
and is son of the allottee.
6.
The case of Shri O.P. Batra & Shri Rajiv Batra, ex-allottee of Flat D-183 & B-82, Flatted
Factory Complex , Okhla was taken up by the Committee on 20 .10.2009 and discussed
in detail. The brief facts of the case is two Flatted Factory Complex have been allotted
to Shri O.P. Batra and his son Shri Rajiv Batra in the year 1982. Both the allottees have
not paid any rent and also have not started any manufacturing activities hence
department/competent authority cancelled the allotment of flats. Subsequently Estate
Officer passed an eviction order in both the cases.
Against this decision of the
Department the ex-allottees filed a case against the department in the District Court and
the District Court withheld the orders of the Estate Officer in respect of Shri O.P. Batra
whereas in case of Shri Rajiv Batra the ADJ has ordered to uphold the order of the
Estate Officer.
Subsequently, in the case where ADJ desired in favour of the
Department the ex-allottee i.e. Shri Rajiv Batra preferred an appeal in the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi whereas in case of Shri O.P. Batra the Department preferred an appeal
in the High Court against the order of ADJ. Finally, the Hon’ble High Court vide its
order dated 12.12.08 has remanded back the case to the Estate Officer as out of two
cancelled flats the ex-allottees willing to surrender one of the flat. The Estate Officer
after hearing the party passed an order dated 25.06.09 referring back the case to the
Department to reconsider the allotment of one of the flat. Shri O.P. Batra also furnished
false affidavit to the effect that none of his family members were offered allotment at
FFC, Okhla.
The matter was placed before the Committee and the Committee desired to call both
the ex-allottees within 15 days. Both the ex-allottees should appear before
the
Committee with all the records available with them as well as missing file should also be
reconstructed.
As per the recommendations of the ILMAC, the matter was referred to Law Department
to opine in the matter and in turn the Law Department asked to depute an officer for
discussion/clarification in the matter. The Assistant Commissioner went to discuss the
issue with Law Department on date 29.12.2009 (as per note at N/107) and as mentioned
in his note, there is no specific legal query for examination and department should pass
speaking order in the matter. The matter was again placed before the ILMAC today
with the views of Law Department, as recorded by ACI, and the ILMAC is of the
considered view that Lessor being Competent Authority, the matter should be placed
before him by giving full facts and background of the case for decision on the matter.
7.
The matter of M/s Jayanti Tools, Plot No.1050, Narela Industrial Complex was taken up by
ILMAC regarding the change of constitution and execution of lease deed. Applicant
Shri Neeraj Chopra, partner of the firm is also present before the ILMAC. The matter is
pending for a very long period on the issue whether any UEI is payable on account of
the change in constitution as the mother of the original partners was included in the
firm as 33.34% partner on 1.4.2002 and subsequently retired from the firm on 25.5.2005
thereby restoring the firm to the original partners.
ILMAC has perused the matter. In this case, the allotment of plot was made in July,
1990 in the name of partnership firm M/s Jyanti Tools having two brothers as partners,
namely Shri Neeraj Chopra and Shri Pankaj Chopra, both sons of Shri Inder Mohan
Chopra. Smt. Prakash Chopra w/o Shri Inder Mohan Chopra was included as 33.34%
partner vide partnership deed dated 1.4.2002.
Subsequently, Smt. Prakash Chopra
retired from the firm vide dissolution deed dated 25.5.2005 leaving the firm with the
original partners, who executed a separate partnership deed on the same day. The
contention of Shri Neeraj Chopra is that his mother was included in the partnership in
2002 order to improve the Debt/Equity ratio of the firm as the firm had taken a loan
from her. Subsequently, since she was old and did not want to continue, in accordance
with her wishes, she retired in 2005. He contends that in DDA definition, mother is a
part of family, therefore, no UEI should be charged.
Matter has been deliberated. As per the Land Management guidelines applicable to the
industrial estates of Industries department and DSIIDC, UEI charges are applicable for
the change in constitution dated 1.4.2002 as per the rates prevalent in 2002-03.
However, no UEI chargeable for second transaction dated 25.5.2005 wherein the share
of the retiring partner has gone to her sons, as the transaction is within the family and
defined in the Land Management Guidelines. Further, since the change of constitution
was intimated by the applicant to the Corporation on 9.11.2004, regularization charges
for delayed intimation as applicable from 1.4.2002 to 8.11.2004 in accordance with
clause (iii) of LMG. Accordingly, the branch may collect the UEI charges and execute
the lease deed with the approval of competent authority and subject to payment of any
other dues.
8. Plot No. 249-A, Okhla Industrial Area, M/s Alok Electronics. The applicant has
represented against the subletting and interest charged by the department @ 18%
compound. The matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Similar
issue of interest rate are also pending in different sections of land branch. The ILMAC
is of the view that Land Co-ordination branch will put up a proposal before C.I. in the
light of the order dated 31.1.2008, which was duly approved by Hon’ble L.G. Whatever
will be the outcome, it will be applicable in all similar cases.
(M.S. Garg)
DCI - Convenor
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Copy to:
1.
2.
3.
Dated
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convenor
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. - Member
Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager(RL), DSIIDC – Member
JCI (Relocation)
JCI (Land-Okhla)
PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)
DCI – Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
Dated
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC)
held on 02.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was
convened on 02.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member- Convener
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. – Member
Sh Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager, DSIIDC – Member
The cases discussed were as under:1.
A-6, FFC Okhla. On 20.7.2006, the Estate Manager reported that the allottee had occupied
the corridors by stocking raw materials for his production. Show-cause-Notice was issued
against the said violation to the allottee on 30.5.2007. The applicant replied that he has
removed the encroachment and submitted an affidavit that he will not encroach the
government land in future. Subsequent to this, the Estate Manager in his report dated
12.6.2009 and 3.8.2009, confirms that no encroachment was found during his visit. The
ILMAC is of the view that the clarification and affidavit given by the applicant is required
to be taken on record with an advise to the allottee/applicant to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the lease deed failing which deemed fit action for such violation will be taken
by the Department.
2.
F-248 FFC Okhla.
On 20.11.2006, the Estate Manager reported that the allottee has
occupied the back area and corridors by stocking raw materials for his production. Showcause-Notice was issued against the said violation to the allottee on 20.8.2007.
The
applicant replied that he has removed the encroachment and submitted an affidavit that he
will not encroach the government land in future. Subsequent to this, the Estate Manager in
his report dated 22.10.2008, confirms that no encroachment was found during his visit.
The ILMAC is of the view that the clarification and affidavit given by the applicant is
required to be taken on record with an advise to the allottee to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the lease deed failing which deemed fit action for such violation will be taken
by the Department.
3.
Shed No.101, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Estate. Shri Raghubir Singh, Proprietor of the firm
M/s Mohindra Sports Works is present before the Committee. His case is for conversion
from lease hold to free hold. On last occasion the matter was placed before the ILMAC on
dated 9.11.2009 and 22.2.2010 related to mutation in favour of Shri Raghubir Singh and on
subletting issue respectively.
Both the issues stands settled as recommended by the
Committee. In this instant case, the unit is functional and has paid all the dues as well as
the mutation has been allowed in favour of Shri Raghubir Singh, therefore, the Committee
is of the view to recommend the case to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in
favour of Shri Raghubir Singh, Proprietor M/s Mohindra Sport Works subject to payment of
outstanding dues, if any, and s per Land Management Guidelines.
As regards
encroachment, the EM reported that there is some raw material on Government land. The
applicant states that the raw material is because of loading and unloading and the raw
material was to be taken inside the premises. The Committee is of the view that since no
encroachment on government land by way of construction (temporary/permanent) on
government land or by way of fencing hence it can not be construed as encroachment on
government land and free-hold is recommended to be allowed by the Committee.
4
Plot No.240, Phase-III, Okhla Indusgtrial Estate. The case was already considered in the
ILMAC on 7.12.2009. Now, it has been considered in view of the clarification sought by
the DCI (Okhla) whether applicant/applicants who is/are partners or Directors in a
Company is/are carrying out different permitted manufacturing activities
should be
allowed for conversion or not. The issue has already deliberated upon in the ILMAC and as
per conversion scheme; the plot should be used for industrial purpose. The Committee has
already allowed conversion from lease hold to free hold.
5. The case of Plot No.57, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to
free hold was considered by the Committee on the recommendation of the concerned
branch. It was observed that there is an issue relating to payment of sub-letting charges
along with penal interest @18% p.a. for the belated payment. In this connection, the then
Commissioner of Industries has observed that: “how interest can be charged when no
demand has been raised? There is a legal opinion available from Law Department (perhaps in
file of Shed No.69 of O.I.E.). We have also received a fresh decision from Hon’ble L.G.
regarding rate of interest which is now simple instead of compound. The calculation needs
to be reworked in case interest is leviable.” in this regard From the perusal of the file, it is
observed that no decision has been taken as yet by the concerned branch inspite of
directions of the Commissioner of Industries. Now the administrative branch has pointed
out that as per the circular dated 31.1.2008, it is specifically provided in para 2 that 18%
simple interest shall be charged on all belated payments except in those cases where specific
rate of interest has been prescribed in the lease/rent agreement.
However, where
compound interest has been charged, was not to be re-opened. The ILMAC has gone
through the relevant notings of the file No.DDI(Land)/Policy/CI/97 from which the order
dated 31.1.2008 was issued after due approval of Hon’ble L.G. “It has been pointed out by
Pr. Secy. (Fin) in the meeting held on 27.7.2007 referred to above, FD agreed to the view
that the issues involved are matters of policy decision for the administrative Department,
rather than financial in nature. Besides, FD and Planning Department do not have the
benefit of field level knowledge and the history of the policy/practices followed so far in such
matters pertaining to land, therefore, administrative Department may move for a policy
decision, if necessary, in consultation with Law Department. CS may kindly see for advice.”
It was observed that the department has deliberated in detail to the said policy decision in
consultation with various departments including finance/planning/land etc. and the matter
is finally approved by the L.G. after taking all aspects into consideration. Accordingly, from
the contents of the said file and directions of Hon’ble L.G. at page 55/N, ILMAC
recommends that the said circular is applicable for levy of 18% simple interest on all
belated payments including subletting charges except restoration charges where the rate of
interest has been specifically provided in the order dated 31.1.2008 and except wherever
the rate of interest is prescribed in the lease/rent agreement.
6. Shed No.41, Okhla Industrial Estate.
M/s Industrial Containers and Closures Ltd. has
applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold. Once the applicant’s case was rejected
as the unit was not in manufacturing, was not willing to pay surcharge towards change of
share holders and payment against unauthorized subletting. Subsequently, the applicant
applied a fresh after rejection of his case vide application dated 8 th Aug., 2009 (C-399 on
record) and has paid the current conversion charges along with surcharge levyable thereon,
subletting charges and has started manufacturing activities as per Estate Manager report
dated 15.9.2009 and 8.2.2010 (C/425 and C/478 on record). The Committee is of the view
that the allottee has paid all dues including surcharge, subletting charges with interest and
has started production as well as no encroachment has been reported by the Estate
manager, hence conversion from lease hold to free hold is recommended subject to
payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per Land Management Guidelines.
7. D-159, FFC Okhla. Mrs. Asha Mehra, w/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Mehra (original allottee) has
appeared before the ILMAC. This case is for mutation in her favour after death of her
husband, the original allottee.
Smt. Mehra has submitted all the required documents i.e.
death certificate of her husband, indemnity bond, affidavit etc. which are required for
mutation. She has also accepted hire purchase offer on dated 30.6.2006 to convert the flat
under hire purchase scheme. The Committee is of the view to recommend to allow
mutation in her favour as well as to allow hire purchase also subject to payment of hirepurchase cost and other formalities as per the scheme
8. Flat No.E-216, FFC Okhla. The case is regarding change in constitution in favour of Smt.
Gurish Kaur. She has submitted partnership deed and dissolution deed dated 17.10.91,
18.12.91, 10.4.2004 & 25.6.2004 making her finally proprietor of the unit E-216. All the
necessary formalities have been got completed by the branch including affidavit with all
signatures. Partnership Deed and dissolution deed are genuine (C-152 on record). Further
she has also submitted indemnity bond which watches the interest of the department. The
ILMAC is of the considered view to recommend the case for change in constitution in
favour of Smt. Gurish Kaur subject to payment of composition charges and other dues, if
any as per LMG. The Committee is further viewed that since the applicant applied for hire
purchase before 30.6.2006, therefore, the hire purchase also recommended to be allowed
subject to payment of hire purchase cost and completion of other formalities.
9. A-3, FFC Okhla. Shri Avtar Singh requested for change in constitution in his favour and
has accepted hire purchase before stipulated date i.e. 30.6.2006. He has submitted all the
required documents for change in constitution and the unit is functioning, as per Estate
Manage Report dated 30.7.2009 (C-337). The Committee is of the view to recommend the
case before competent authority to allow change in constitution in favour of the applicant
subject to payment of hire purchase cost and any other formalities.
10. The case of plot No.80, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to
free hold in favour of the subsequent purchaser was considered by ILMAC on the
recommendations of the concerned branch. Shri Vipin Bansal, partner of the firm appeared
before the Committee. According to the report of the Estate Manager, there is no violation
and nothing is adverse against the unit. The composition charges has been paid as per order
dated 5.10.2009. The linkage to the present applicant is complete, as reported by the
branch. It is, therefore, the ILMAC accordingly, recommends to allow conversion in
favour of the applicant from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues,
if any, as per guidelines.
11. The case of Plot No.210 FIE Patparganj for forwarding the appeal to Hon’ble L.G. i.e. the
Lessor for restoration of the plot was considered by the ILMAC as per the proposal of the
concerned branch. Shri Rajiv Sood, the applicant is appeared before the Committee. It was
observed that the lease of the said plot was cancelled for unauthorized sale/transfer etc. At
present, the applicant, Shri Rajiv Sood, who is subsequent purchaser and has possession of
the plot has also applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold in his favour. The
report of the Estate Manager also confirm his possession is available on file at page C/176.
The ILMAC recommends that concerned branch should forward the appeal to Hon’ble L.G.
giving complete facts for his consideration under the guidelines.
12. Case of M/s U.Like Engineering Works, relocation application No.28100 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor Shri Ramesh Sehgal has expired and now his
son has requested for mutation of plot in his favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis
of documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Late
Shri Ramesh Sehgal and allows induction of his son Shri Aman Sehgal as proprietor of the
firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the
deceased as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
13. Case of M/s Young India (Hydraulic), relocation application No.42906 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor Shri Jagdish Lal Aneja has expired and now
his son has requested for mutation of plot in his favour as proprietor of the firm. On the
basis of documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends deletion of name of
Late Jagdish Lal Aneja and allows induction of his son Shri J.P. Aneja as proprietor of the
firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the
deceased as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
14. Case of M/s Twinkle Plastic Industries, relocation application No.21529 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor Shri Manohar Lal Taneja has expired and
now his son has requested for mutation of plot in his favour as proprietor of the firm. On
the basis of documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends deletion of
name of Late Shri Manohar Lal Taneja and allows induction of his son Shri Vijay Kumar
Tajena as proprietor of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is
within the legal heirs of the deceased as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
15. Case of M/s Vidya Sagar Jain & Sons, relocation application No.29174 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor Shri Vidya Sagar Jain has retired and now
his son has requested for transfer of rights and interests of plot in his favour as proprietor of
the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends
deletion of name of Vidya Sagar Jain and allows induction of his son Shri Rajesh Kumar
Jain as proprietor of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within
the family as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
16. Case of M/s Perfect Tin Containers, relocation application No.10821 was considered by
ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were 4 partners, out of which 3 have
retired and the continuing partner has requested for transfer of rights and interests of plot
in her favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party,
the Committee recommends deletion of names of partners Shri Sanjay Kumar Goel, Shri
Waseemun Nabi Khan & Sh. Nurul Nabi Khan and allows induction of continuing partner
Smt. Neeru Jain as proprietor of the firm with the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is
outside the family as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
17. Case of M/s Adhunik Yantra Udyog Pvt. Ltd., relocation application No.35774 was
considered by ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were three Directors out of
which two have retired and one has expired. Now the son & daughter-in-law of deceased
Director has requested for transfer of rights and interests in their favour as Directors of the
firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends
deletion of names of Smt. Meena Maheshwari, Shri Manish Maheshwari & Late Shri G.D.
Maheshswari and allows induction of his son Shri Vijay Maheshwari & Daughter-in-law
Smt. Ruchira Maheshwari as Directors of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as
the transfer is within the family as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
18. Case of M/s S.L. Mehta, relocation application No.35190 This case was earlier placed before
the Committee on 23.11.2009. ILMAC was of the view to take opinion of Legal Counsil.
Accordingly opinion from the legal Counsil has been obtained by the concerned branch
and this case was again placed before the Committee. Earlier there were three partners.
One of which has expired and the other has retired. Continuing partner has requested for
transfer of rights and interests in her favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis of
documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends deletion of names of Smt.
Kanta Mehta and Late Sh. Anil Mehta and allows induction of the continuing partner Smt.
Aarti Mehta as proprietor of the firm with the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is
outside the family as per LMG subject to payment of dues, if any.
19.
Case of M/s S.K.Jain Wire Industries, relocation application No.4608.
This case was
considered by ILMAC regarding chargeability of UEI on the share of married daughters in
death cases, reference CMD’s note on the file. Change in Constitution was earlier approved
at N/18 subject to payment of UEI charges on the share of married daughters. This case was
discussed in ILMAC, since the properties in such cases goes to the legal heirs of deceased
allottee, no UEI is chargeable as per LMG (ref. Sl. No.3(vi) of LMG). Same view was also
taken in one of such cases of Narela Allotment Cell of Madan Lal Rastogi & Bimla Devi
Rastogi, Plot No.806, Narela Industrial Complex and all such similar cases currently.
Accordingly, ILMAC is of the view that no UEI charges be recovered, however, pre-revised
payment, if paid, may not be refunded.
20.
The case of plot No.20, Patparganj Industrial Estate was discussed in the ILMAC with regard
to the matter of sub-letting charges and interest thereon. It is observed from the facts of
the case that the applicant had filed application for conversion from lease hold to free hold
on 31.3.2006. While processing the same it was observed that the conversion has been
sought in favour of individual name i.e. Rajesh Khursija on the strength of agreement to sell
where as the applicant has been running industrial unit in the name of a private limited
company i.e. M/s Prakash Amusement Rides and Fun World Pvt. Ltd., which is a registered
Co. with Rajesh Khursija as one of the Directors of the Company. As per the department’s
guidelines, the same was treated to be subletdting and subletting charges were got
calculated from accounts branch at page C/290. Accordingly, the demand was raised to the
applicant for sum of Rs.11,27,209/- consisting of subletting
Rs.4,57,709 and interest Rs.6,69,500/-.
charges amounting to
After repeated reminders, the applicant finally
deposited the said amount on 4.12.2008 as per his letter at page C/310. Since there was a
delay of approximately one year in payment of the demanded amount, the interest
component for the said period was got calculated from accounts branch which was reported
to be Rs.22,178/- at page N/87 by the accounts branch. Accordingly, demand was raised on
20.1.2010 by the department. The applicant has deposited the said amount on 27.1.2010.
When the draft was sent for deposition in government account to the accounts branch,
then it was realized by the accounts branch that the actual amount of interest was
Rs.2,21,798/- as interest for the belated payment made on 4.12.2008 instead of Rs.22,178/-.
It was further pointed out by the accounts branch that due to inadvertent error, the amount
of subletting charges was also calculated incorrectly by taking into account the subletted
area as 3076 sq.ft. whereas the actual subletted area comes to 6305 sq.ft. by converting the
subletted area mentioned in sq.mt. into sq.ft.
Due to this reason, the subletting charges
was re-calculated and now it comes to Rs.9, 38,184/- and interest @ 18% (compound) is
calculated as Rs.8, 39,659/-. Thus, the total demand calculated to Rs.20, 03,317/-, out of
which the applicant has already paid an amount of Rs.11,49,387/-. Accordingly, as per the
fresh calculation, the demand of Rs.8, 53,930/- will remain outstanding against the
applicant, out of which subletting charges comes to Rs.4,80,475/- and interest at
Rs.3,73,455/- up to the date of filing application.
The matter has been deliberated by the ILMAC and the Committee is of the view
that since the arithmetic error occurred on the part of the department, therefore, the
interest component for the period no demand has been raised for the balance amount of
subletting charges is not appropriate. Further, as per the order dated 31.1.2008, it has
already been decided by the Hon’ble L.G. that 18% simple interest should be charged for all
belated payments. The C.I. has also taken the same view and ordered to charge 18% simple
interest is accordance with LG’s order. Therefore, the interest component on the total
subletting charges should be re-calculated @18% simple interest. Acordingly, ILMAC, after
going through the recommendation of the concerned branch, is of the view that no interest
should be charged for the periods and for the amounts for which demand was not raised
/pending with the applicant and that the interest should be calculated @ 18% simple
interest in view of the order dated 31.1.2008.
The concerned branch should get the
demand re-calculated accordingly @ 18% simple interest and intimate the applicant about
the outstanding dues accordingly.
21.
E-198, FFC Okhla M/s Plastomac (India). The request is pending before the department
for change in constitution in favour of Smt. Chanchal Kumari and Smt. Neelam
Mahandru. The change in constitution was approved at N/60 on file with conditions
stipulated therein as mentioned at N/60. While the case was under process, a letter was
received from ACP, Crime Branch, Economic Offence Wing concerning to this flat
which was reminder of letter dated 24.5.1999 (C-205 on file). Originally this flat was
allotted to Shri Girish Kumar and subsequent event about the change of partnership and
dissolution deed are on record.
Smt Samundri Devi has complaint about the
fraudulently transferring the flat by way of fraud in the partnership. Smt. Samundri
Devi is in between link prior to this change which was subsequently dissolved by
dissolution deed on record. Since then, the matter had been pending and the crime
branch has filed report before the court. At one point of time, a decision was taken by
the then Commissioner on file that the issue should be close down till final outcome of
the court case (N-79). Subsequent to this many letters written by this Department to
LBR, Economic Office Wing to provide the status of the case as well as provide a copy
of charge sheet, if possible. The letters are on record. Till date no reply of these letters
has been received. The matter was placed before the ILMAC and ILMAC after going
through the entire detail of the case is of considered view that a last letter is required to
be written to Economic Offence Wing to provide the status of the case, and if they have
any objection to allow change in constitution or not. In the letter it should be clearly
mentioned that if no reply is received within 20 days of the receipt of this letter, the
department will process the case further to allow change in constitution as approved by
the then CI on 9.12.1998 at N/60. At N/105, the then Commissioner also recorded that
we cannot keep cases pending unnecessarily. Taking all the matters into consideration,
after receipt of reply or in case no reply is received from the Economic Offence Wing,
in such case an Indemnity Bond (duly registered with sub-registrar) from the applicant
is required to be obtained and thereafter the case should be submitted before the
competent authority i.e. C.I. for implementing the order of the then C.I. at N/60 about
the change in constitution, which was approved on 9.12.1998 subject to completion of
all formalities and establishing proper chain of all changes taken place as per Land
Management Guidelines and payment of pending dues, if any.
22.
The directions of CMD, DSIIDC in the file of Plot No. 131, Narela Industrial Area were
placed before the ILMAC by GM, Narela Allotment Cell. The case of this plot was
placed before ILMAC on 15/2/2010 for change of constitution in favour of applicant and
petitioner Shri Sanjeev Bhatia, pursuant to directions of Hon’ble High Court dated
19/1/10 in Contempt Case No. 207/2008. While approving the change of constitution as
directed by Hon’ble High Court on payment of the change of constitution charges as
recommended by ILMAC, CMD and Secy-cum-CI has ordered as follows:
-
“
As proposed.
-
ILMAC may also recommend a method by which such delays are avoided and the
payments are received timely, separately pl.”
ILMAC has deliberated over the matter and it is observed as follows:
1)
In respect of Narela Industrial Area specifically, earlier the delay was primarily
occurring because the powers of change of constitution were being exercised by
Industries Department. However, the Lessor, i.e. Hon’ble LG has in 2008 delegated
powers for execution of lease, conversion, etc to DSIIDC, due to which there is no
justification for delays now.
2)
The branches concerned of DSIIDC as well as those of Industries Department dealing
with land matters of different industrial estates were facing difficulties on some issues,
such as calculation of UEI charges in death cases where married daughters are among
legal heirs, change of directors/shareholders in pvt. Limited companies, interest rate on
delayed payments, etc. All such cases are now being placed before ILMAC and decision
is being expedited. Clarification has been requested from Law Department and
Inspector General of Registration also where required.
3)
Further, in order to avoid the delay in receipt of payments, ILMAC recommends that
the land branch concerned should take Advance Transfer Charges where the matter is
very clear cut and the charges are clearly defined. In other cases, the branch should
calculate the demand provisionally and put up the matter before ILMAC, maximum
within 30 days of the receipt of application. If the application is deficient, the deficiency
memo should also be sent at the earliest, but not later than 15 days of the receipt of the
application giving a reasonable time within which the applicant should rectify the
defects, failing which the application should be rejected and not kept pending.
4)
18% S.I. on the demanded amount should be charged if the amount is not deposited
within 30 days from the date of issue of demand letter, and this should be clearly stated
in the demand letter, However, it would not be justified to claim interest from the
applicant for the period of pendency in the department during which neither a
deficiency memo nor a demand letter has been issued.
(M.S. Garg)
DCI - Convenor
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dated
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convenor
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. - Member
Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager(RL), DSIIDC – Member
Copy to:
1.
2.
3.
JCI (Relocation)
JCI (Land-Okhla)
PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)
DCI – Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
Dated
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC)
held on 08.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was
convened on 08.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member- Convener
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. – Member
Sh Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager, DSIIDC – Member
The cases discussed were as under:-
1.
The lease of Plot No.S-53, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate was considered by the ILMAC for
conversion from lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri
Naveen Jain, applicant appeared before the Committee. The case was last seen by ILMAC in its
meeting held on 18.10.2010 and as per the recommendations, the conversion amount paid by the
original allottee was adjusted with the approval of the competent authority and after realization of
entire conversion amount, the case has been placed before this Committee for recommendation.
As per the Estate Manager report, nothing adverse is reported and all dues are reported to be paid
and construction is within the maximum permissible limit. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to
allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of present applicant as per
recommendation of concerned branch subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per
guidelines.
2.
The case of Shed No.28, Phase-II, Scheme-II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi was taken up
by the ILMAC. Shri Arjun Kumar Kapur, the applicant and his father Shri Dalbir Kumar Kapur
appeared before the Committee. The brief history of the case is that the said shed was in the name
of Mrs. Veena Kapur. Mrs. Kapur expired on 20.12.2007 and her son Shri Arjun Kumar Kapur has
applied for transfer of shed in his name as legal heir of his deceased mother. Shri Arjun Kumar
Kapur has submitted all the legal documents like relinquishment deed, duly registered with the
sub-registrar office, executed by the other two legal heirs namely the husband and daughter of the
deceased, Indemnity Bond, Original WILL, original death certificate etc. The recovery branch of
DSIIDC has already recommended the case for transfer of shed in the name of the applicant Shri
Arjun Kumar Kapur, son of the deceased allottee.
In view of the above, the ILMAC recommends the change of constitution in favour of Shjri
Arjun Kumar Kapur without UEI, since the transfer is within the legal heirs after death of the
allottee in accordance with the WILL.
3.
The case of S-50, Badli Industrial Estate was considered by the ILMAC for conversion from
lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. The applicants are
subsequent purchasers and chain of documents/transfer is reported to be complete as per the report
available at page 456/C. Estate Manager report also mention nothing adverse against the unit.
Composition charges has been realized for the 4th year as per form `D’ dated 7.12.1983. The
applicant has also produced NOC from State Bank of India against mortgage permission.
Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the
present applicant subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
4.
Shed No.4 Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate. This case was considered by ILMAC regarding
mutation in favour of Shri Kailash Yadav in his presence. The matter was earlier discussed in
ILMAC on 29.12.2009, when it was observed that the applicant is occupying the area of 5500 Sq.ft.
against the allotted land of 4800 Sq.ft., as per the report of the Estate Manager. At that time, the
applicant had agreed to remove the encroachment from the government land. Now as per the
fresh report received from the Estate Manager mentioned that he had visited the site and found
that the excess areas has been vacated and new boundary wall has been erected. Further he has
relied upon the site plan issued by the registered Architecture Shri Manjit Singh Saggu. There is a
statement also given by Shri Kailash Yadav to the Estate Manager in this regard. After considering
the same, ILMAC is of the view that the Estate Manager should submit his clear cut report with
respect to the encroachment of Government Land as reported by him earlier and also the
applicants should furnish an affidavit declaring that they have removed the encroachment and
they will not encroach the said land in future.
The concerned branch should take action
accordingly.
5.
The case of Plot No.H-1167, Narela was considered in the ILMAC. Shri Ravi Chadha,
allottee of the plot also appeared before the Committee and submitted his contention that since he
has already submitted an application for execution of lease deed, so composition charges in respect
of execution of lease deed may not be charged. However, as per record available, a demand of
Rs.15,900/- on account of road cutting and water connection charges & Rs.5,400/- on account of
sever connection was sent vide letter No.753 dated 17.8.2005. The allottee has contended that he
was not in receipt of that letter, hence could not deposit the said charges. Now, the ILMAC is of
the considered view thagt an amount of Rs.3,18,500/- on account of non execution of lease deed in
accordance with the government policy as the allottee did not execute the lease deed in time in
spite of the repeated opportunities and public notices. The contention that he was not in receipt of
the letter dated 17.8.2005 of the Corporation could not be accepted as even if it is agreed that the
letter was not received by him, it is evident that he did not follow up the application with the
department as he has himself admitted. Moreover, he has not paid ground rent and maintenance
chargers also for the last 4 to 5 years, which are to be paid two times in a year (i.e. half yearly
basis). This also shows that the applicant has been ignoring payment of dues, which was the
mandatory requirement for execution of lease deed.
In view of the above situation, ILMAC recommends that the lease deed may now to be
executed in accordance with time limit set by the Government i.e. 31st March, 2010 subject to
payment of composition charges as per the policy and other pending dues.
6.
The case of M/s R.K. Mechanical Works, 111, Shastri Nagar,
(Application No.53498) for
allotment of Industrial Plot under relocation scheme was considered by the Committee in view of
the directions of Hon’ble High Court dated 25.1.2010. Shri S.S. Parashar, Attorney Holder of the
applicant appeared before the Committee. He shows some of the documents like Central Sales Tax
Registration Certificate etc. issued on 19.6.2000 with date of liability mentioned as 20.9.1995. The
case deferred for 16th March, 2010 for further deliberation. Shri Parashar was advised to bring all
relevant documents in support of his claim on the said date.
7.
The case of Plot No.105, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate was considered by the ILMAC for
conversion from lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri
S.L. Chhabra, the applicant appeared before the Committee.
The applicant is a subsequent
purchaser on the strength of GPA and agreement to sell dated 24.12.1985 and GPA is registered
whereas agreement to sell is unregistered. Construction is within the last extension granted as per
form `D’. Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager.
Accordingly, ILMAC
recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Sh. S.L. Chhabra & Smt.
Anita Chhabra subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
8.
The case of Plot No.24, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate was placed before the Committee in
which an affidavit is expected to file with Hon’ble High Court regarding the matter of subletting
between the sister concerns. Since it is a sub-judice matter, based on the facts and documents, the
branch may process and file the affidavit, after taking approval from the competent authority, in
the Hon’ble High Court in the next date of hearing. In this case Shri V.K. Jain, allottee along with
Shri Ashok Jain s/o of the allottee also appeared before the Committee and explained that the next
date of hearing is 26th April, 2010. Within this deadline the needful to be done.
9.
The case of plot No.199, FIE Patpargang was considered by the ILMAC for conversion from
lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Baldev Raj
Chawla, Applicant appeared before the Committee. It has been reported that the applicant has
constructed the premises within maximum permissible time and composition charges have been
paid as per order dated 5.10.2009. There is a subletting reported for the period from 2004 to till
filing the application for conversion and subletting charges with interest has been paid by the
applicant.
Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager.
The applicant is a
subsequent purchaser and chain of transfer is complete. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to
allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicant as per recommendation of
concerned branch subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
10. The case of Plot No.1243, Narela was placed before the Committee as per the recommendation
of the concerned branch. Shri Manoj Vij, partner is appeared before the Committee. It was found
that the branch has not examined the case of conversion from lease hold to free hold by taking all
relevant facts and documents. Further, there is a direction from the Hon’ble High Court regarding
petition filed by the allottee in connection with the reduction of conversion charges.
It is
therefore, the ILMAC is of the view that the land branch examine the issue by incorporating the
directions of the Hon’ble High Court and other relevant papers and may be placed in the next
meeting of ILMAC with clear cut recommendations as per Land Management Guidelines.
11. S-98, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Area. As per the Hon’ble High Court order dated 17.4.2009,
interest was enhanced against delay in payment for restoration charges from 6% to 10.2% on the
basis of review application filed in the Hon’ble Court. Further, the court in their previous order
dated 29.1.2008, allowed to pay amount in installments. The applicant has paid amount at various
stages whereas the Accounts Branch has calculated interest on total restoration charges of
Rs.5,18,112/- till the last payment received whereas the applicant has claimed to adjust the
amount at various stages of the amount paid i.e. principal & interest. After going through the
request of the applicant, the Committee is of the considered view that the accounts branch should
re-calculate the amount as per GFR rules so that the applicant could be informed with clear
calculation in the matter that what is the outstanding amount to be paid by him till date.
Whatever principal amount paid at different stages, on that amount interest cannot be charged
after the date of payment received (principal amount) as levying of interest after receipt of
principal amount will not stand judicial scrutiny.
12. Shed No.17, O.I.E Phase-III—Ideal Hi –Tech Engineering Equipment Pvt.Ltd. has applied
for conversion of this land from Lease hold to free hold. Shri Bansal and Shri Dhruv Sharma
representatives of M/s Ideal Hi-Tech. Engg. Equipment Pvt. Ltd. were also present in the
meeting. The lease was executed in favour of the allottee on 07.04.1992. The Company was
initially constituted with following share-holders:I)
II)
III)
IV)
V)
VI)
Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain
Sh.A.D.Mittla
Smt.Kusum Lata Jain
Sh.Keshav Chander Jain
Smt Bimla Devi
Sh.Sagar Chand Jain
Subsequent to this it was informed in this instant case that all the share holders of this
company has been replaced by the following share holders:i)
ii)
iii)
Sh.D.K.Jain
Sh.Pankaj Jain
Smt,Usha Jain
This information was given by the applicant on dated 17-01-2002(C/220 to C/221 on
file). On this basis the change of share holders was allowed charging 50% unearned increase
on 100% transfer of shares. A letter was issued to this effect on 08.05.2002 (C/223 on record).
Subsequent to this the allottee did not make payment as the applicant was disputing the
demand raised by the department. The applicant applied for conversion from lease hold to free
hold on dated 18.03.2009. The department decided to recover the arrear from the allottee first
against the demand dated 08.05.2002 with interest. All the pending issues were brought before
the ILMAC on 09-11-2009, 21-12-2009,04-01-2010 and 18-01-2010. Finally a demand of
Rs.1,03,58,897/- was raised and applicant has paid the amount. While processing the case of
free hold, the current list of share holders was asked. The applicant informed as per copy
supplied by him at page (C/478-479 on record) that Sh.Pankaj Jain transferred his share on
30.03.2002 to his mother Smt.Usha Jain i.e. prior to issue of demand letter dated 08.05.2002. In
all other cases wherever share has been transferred out of family, 100% surcharge is being
levied by the Accounts Branch. In this instant case Sh.Pankaj Jain has transferred the share in
favour of his mother and as per LMG, transfer of share from son to mother do not fall under
family definition. It was also observed by the ILMAC that date of transfer is 30.03.2002
whereas demand letter was issued on 08.05.2002 against 100% transfer of shares.
Here
question arises whether the surcharge is leviable against the subsequent transfer of shares out
of family is chargeable or not as department has already received 50% UEI against the 100%
share transferred. Secondly whether again transfer of share before raising the demand and
intimation given now will attract surcharge or not. The ILMAC is of considered view that
during this period of transfer of share 50% UEI has already been charged, therefore, it will not
be appropriate to charge surcharge at this stage. With this recommendation ILMAC is of
further view to seek approval by the Competent Authority about regularization of the above
changes without any surcharge. If Competent Authority feels so, opinion of Law Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi will also be obtained in this matter. Once the issue is resolved, the
ILMAC is of considered view to recommend the case for conversion from lease hold to free
hold subject to the provisions of policy guidelines and dues to be recovered, if any.
(M.S. Garg)
DCI - Convenor
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2009/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Copy to:
1.
2.
3.
Dated
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convenor
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. - Member
Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager(RL), DSIIDC – Member
JCI (Relocation)
JCI (Land-Okhla)
PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)
DCI – Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/
Dated
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC)
held on 15.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Joint Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was
convened on 08.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
2. Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
3. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
4. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member
5. h. M.K. Sharma, F.O. – Member
6. Sh Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager, DSIIDC – Member
The cases discussed were as under:1.
Plot No. 349, FIE Patparganj - The case for conversion from leasehold to freehold was
considered by ILMAC. The applicant, M/s Heat Exchange Pvt. Ltd. was represented by the
Directors Shri Ajeet Singh, Mrs. Jasbir Kaur and Mr. Harmit Singh. There was a complaint of Shri
V.K. Daman in the matter regarding violation of conditions of lease by the applicant and he was
also called in the meeting. Shri V.K. Dhawan accompanied by Shri Ajeet Kumar Mittal,
Proprietor of the said firm were also present. The complainant, Shri V.K. Dhawan was asked to
identify himself as well as the complaints he has against the applicants. Shri V.K. Dhawan
introduced himself as Manager of Ajeet Mittal Corporation. The grievance of the complainant was
that he had taken the premises at Plot No. 349, FIE Patparganj on rent from M/s Heat Exchange
Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the allottee in the year 2003. He further states that he was kept in dark by the allottee
while executing the lease deed (rent deed) by stating that they are the absolute owners of the plot
whereas it came to his notice later on that they were the Lessee of the said plot which was allotted
by Industries Department on lease. He has further stated that the allottee unit did not require the
plot for its bonafide use and needs to be proceeded against for violation of lease conditions. It was
informed by the applicant that the premises were let out to Mr. Ajeet Mittal on rental basis for a
period of three years through a registered deed in the year 2003. Shri Ajeet Mittal retorted that
the lease agreement was for a period of 3 years, but written understanding was for 10 years. He
has also given a written statement along with documents as enclosed therewith. The applicant
further informed that the matter was taken to arbitration as there was a dispute between the
owner and the tenant and the final award has been given after which they have been given back
possession in Septemebr,2009 for which premises were sealed by the Hon’ble Court to ensure
recovery of money from the tenant and ensure handing over the possession to the applicant. The
Committee has been brought to the notice regarding the above points/observations. The
Committee feels that at the outset there is a fight between the allottee of the plot and the tenant.
The tenant raised some allegations in his complaint which are to be examined in detail with
reference to the Land Management Guidelines and the conversion policy. After the examination
of this issue the branch may place the same before ILMAC.
2.
Plot No. S-79, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi – The case was considered by the
ILMAC for conversion from lease hold to free hold as per the recommendations of the concerned
branch. Shri M.L. Dua, applicant was also present. The case was last discussed in the meeting of
ILMAC on 9.11.09 when it was observed that the family settlement submitted by the applicant is
not registered. So he was advised to produce the same. Sh. M. L. Dua vide letter dated 15.02.2010
has submitted a copy of agreement to sell between Sh. Subhash Dua & Sh. M. L. Dua dated
17.05.1995 duly attested by Notary Public in lieu of registered family settlement as was asked from
him. Applicant contents that he had not submitted the same earlier on the premises that family
settlement entered into by him and his wife with his relative i.e. his cousin brother and his wife is
sufficient to establish the complete chain of transfer upto him. Since the department is not
inclined to agree to the unregistered family settlement, he is now producing agreement to sell in
his favour for ½ undivided share of said plot. The concerned branch has recommended the case
on the basis of agreement to sell as the chain of transfer now becomes complete for allowing
conversion in favour of Sh. M. L. Dua and his wife Smt. Kanta Dua. ILMAC has also considered
the same and has found an affidavit signed by Sh. Subhash Dua at page 187/C confirming the
transfer/surrender of ½ share of industrial plot No. S-79, in favour of Sh. M. L. Dua with delivery
of actual vacant physical possession of the said property. The signature on the family settlement
and the said affidavit are more or less are similar. The signature of Sh. Subhash Dua on agreement
to sell now submitted. Considering the same and the recommendations of the concerned branch,
ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in respect of Plot No. S-79,
Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi in favour of Sh. M. L. Dua and Smt. Kanta Dua subject to
payment of outstanding dues if any as per guidelines.
3.
Plot No. S-33, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi - The case of Plot No. S-33, BIE was
considered for clarification with regard to calculation of transfer charges subsequent to the date of
purchase in 1986 on the changes in constitution has been reflected in some correspondences as
proprietor or as partner for which the applicant has shown his inability to provide the same
because there were no changes during this period as claimed by them before the ILMAC. Sh. Vijay
Singhal GPA holder was also present. It was informed to the ILMAC that the transfer charges are
to be calculated in view of the observation of the OSD to LG at page 118/N while examining the
appeal of the applicants for restoration of the lease. GM(DSIIDC) informed the ILMAC that there
is some instructions going to be issued soon and it will be appropriate if case is deferred till the
receipt of the same. ILMAC accordingly recommends to defer the matter till issue of such
instruction if any and after which the concerned branch will process the matter and place it before
the ILMAC.
4.
Plot No. 16, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi - Plot No. 16, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi was considered for
conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of M/s Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is
subsequent purchaser through GPA and agreement to sell. The chain is complete and the both i.e.
the GPA as well as agreement to sell dated 06.07.2006 are registered with Sub Registrar office as
per the requirement. EM report confirmed the possession as well as manufacturing activity while
certifying that nothing adverse is noticed including encroachment on Govt. land. The
construction of building is also reported to be within the last extension granted to the unit as per
Form-D. The concerned branch has recommended the case. Accordingly ILMAC recommends to
allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of M/s Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. Subject to
payment of outstanding dues if any and as per guidelines.
5.
M/s Manas Industrial Corporation (Application No. 11011) – The case was considered by the
ILMAC. Smt. Savita Mahajan was present as Proprietor of the firm. The issue before ILMAC is
whether UEI is chargeable in this case. The initial eligibility for allotment of relocation plot was
issued by DSIIDC on 25.4.2000 in favour of the allottee firm and subsequently after the draw of
plot held on 26.8.04, a letter of allotment was issued on 24.9.2004. In the meanwhile constitution
of the firm has changed as follows:
Name
Percentage
1.
Shri Darshan Mehta
Partner
1/3rd
2.
Smt. Rajni Mahajan
Partner
1/3rd
3.
Smt. Savita Mahajan
Partner
1/3rd
The above partnership deed was dissolved by dissolving/retirement deed dated 12.03.04 and
thereafter the present applicant, Smt. Savita Mahajan is the sole proprietor of the applicant firm.
The relevant provision of the Land Management Guideline (para-1(vi) is as follows:
“Changes done between the date of application and the date of offer of allotment/demand
letter will be accepted without any change. The date of offer of allotment will be the date of issue
of offer of allotment letter/demand letter”.
The relevant question for deciding the case regarding applicability of UEI is whether the
date of offer of allotment as per the Land Management Guideline is 25.4.2000 or 26.08.2004.
Another question is the year for which the UEI charges will be determined, if applicable, as there
was a delay by the applicant in intimating the change in constitution. The Relocation Branch of
DSIIDC may place this matter again in ILMAC next week with full facts.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.
(M.S. Garg)
DCI - Convenor
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/
1.
Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
2.
Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC
3.
Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convenor
4.
Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member
5.
Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI - Member
6.
Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. - Member
7.
Sh. V.K. Garg, Chief Manager(RL), DSIIDC – Member
Copy to:
1.
JCI (Relocation)
2.
JCI (Land-Okhla)
3.
PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
Dated
(M.S. Garg)
DCI – Convenor