- (1.) IN all these writ petitions, since the common question of law and facts are involved and are related to each other, the same are being decided by present common judgment.
(2.) HEARD Sri Mirza Javed Murtaza, the petitioner in person, Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate, appearing for U.P State Industrial Development Cor­poration Ltd. and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No. 2. The U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short, U.P.S.I.D.C.) allotted plot No. C-19, to the petitioner on lease in the year 1977. A copy of lease agreement dated 19-11-1977 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Alongwith the lease-deed there is a sketch map of plot No. C-19 which has been submitted by Sri Mirza Javed Murtaza. The petitioner, in person, submits that initially the plot No. C-20 was alloted to petitioner but later on it was re numbered as plot No. C-19 after addition of certain more area. The petitioner continued in possession over the industrial plot in question. However, in the year 2006, the petitioner executed deed of assignment for the remaining period of lease in favour of the respon­dent No. 4 who applied for mutation of his name. Earlier, the petitioner has ap­proached this Court by filing a number of writ petitions alleging various grievances against the arbitrary action. Lastly, the present writ petition has been filed with the grievance that U.P.S.I.D.C. is not mutating the name of the respondent No. 4. The impugned order dated 22-6-2007 has been passed by the Managing Director of U.P.S.I.D.C. (Annexure No. 33) by with a demand of Rs. 39,51,000 being cost of 2610 sq. meters land allegedly oc­cupied by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 17,24,231 being transfer levy charge has been raised from the petitioner. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he was having right to transfer the industrial plot in question in favour of respondent No. 4 and there is no provision for imposing transfer levy charge. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that he is continuing in possession over the plot No. C-19 and he has not claimed possession of any additional land. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed on unfounded grounds without giving any opportunity of hearing. The impugned order does not disclose as to in what circumstances and on what rate the respondent UPSIDC is imposing transfer levy charges.
(3.) ON the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has acquired an additional land of 2610 sq. meters. Since the petitioner confined his claim of lease which was allotted to him, in the lease bearing plot No. C-19 for which assigning deed was executed in favour of the opposite party No. 4, the respondents have no right to impose the cost of additional land which ac­cording to respondent comes to 2610 sq. meters.;