V.K. Birla, J. - (1.) M/s. Brahamputra Reality Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory Brijesh Chaudhary is before this Court for following reliefs; "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 13.8.2015 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to return the transfer levy of Rs. 88,75,200/ - alongwith interest within a time bound period. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 not to force the petitioner to execute a fresh lease deed for remaining period. V. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to mutate the name of petitioner in the record book of UPSIDC within a time bound period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court. VI. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner for mortgaging the property No. B -2, Site -B, Industrial Area, Surajpur Kasna, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar within a time bound period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court. VII. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. VIII. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
(2.) Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the company M/s. Punjab Fiber Ltd. (earlier known as Tube Tax Ltd.), a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, executed a lease deed for 90 years from 19.9.1989 from U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'UPSIDC') for industrial purposes. The company M/s. Punjab Fiber Ltd. availed loan from Industrial Financial Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'IFCI') for establishing the industrial unit for which the plot No. B -2, Site -B, Industrial Area, Surajpur Kasna, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, was mortgaged. M/s. Punjab Fiber Ltd. could not pay back the loan amount in question. Therefore, IFCI took steps under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and took possession of the property in question under Sec. 13 (4) of 2002 Act and after resuming the property and the leaseholds rights, advertisement was published in leading newspapers for auctioning the plot in question. The petitioner also participated in the auction proceedings and being the highest bidder paid Rs. 9,72,63,000/ - as auction money. The sale certificate was issued by IFCI in pursuance of the auction made by IFCI on 15.12.2011 for the leased property No. B -2, Site -B, Industrial Area, Surajpur Kasna, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar for sale consideration of Rs. 9,72,63,000/ -. The said sale certificate was registered and the stamp duty of Rs. 64,50,000/ - was paid and the sale certificate was registered on 17.4.2012 as Document No. 8122, Bahi No. R Jild No. 10739 Page from 167 to 816. After the sale certificate was registered and the stamp duty was paid on 17.4.2012 the petitioner submitted an application to UPSIDC Ltd. Regional Office Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar for mutation of the name of the petitioner as a lease holder. On 9.3.2015 UPSIDC issued letter/order to original lessee i.e. M/s. Punjab Fiber Ltd., Corporate Office 1st Floor, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and the information of the same was also given to the petitioner for transferring the property from M/s. Punjab Fibers Ltd. to the petitioner on deposit of transfer charges of Rs. 88,75,200/ -. The order dated 9.3.2015 further directed to execute a fresh lease deed in furtherance of sale certificate issued by IFCI on 17.4.2012. Petitioner, at this juncture, through its Authorised Signatory is before this Court with the submission that demand of transfer levy as well as insistence for execution of fresh lease deed is illegal as same is not at all subscribed by law.
(3.) To the said writ petition in question counter affidavit has been filed and therein mention has been made that whatever demands have been made same is legal and backed by law and the letter dated 9.3.2015 clearly indicates that permission for transfer has to be in consonance with the condition mentioned in the lease deed dated 19.9.1989. Mention has also been made that IFCI or anybody cannot transfer the rights of the lessee and at no point of time to the arrangement that has been so made the lesser has been a contesting party. Mention has been made that whatever demands are there, same are as per the policy and as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed in question and on transfer of the rights of the lessee the transfer levy is required to be paid and so is the requirement of the lease deed being executed afresh.;