Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) SINCE the issue involved in these cases is incidental to each other, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) ONE M/s. Fancam Engineers Hindustan Building, Jamshedpur was allotted Plot No. M -8, 6th Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, Gamharia having an area of 1.5 acres by the respondent -Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (for short 'AIADA') vide its Letter No. 2577 dated 30.8.1976. Accordingly, the possession of the said plot was delivered to M/s. Fancam Engineers Hindustan Building on 9.11.1976 who after taking loan from the Bihar State Financial Corporation (in short 'BSFC') had established its factory. Since M/s. Fancam Engineers Hindustan Building failed to repay the loan amount, the mortgaged/hypotheticated assets of it were put to auction by the BSFC which was purchased in the year 2000 by M/s. Gyan Press Metal Pvt. Ltd. (Proforma respondent in W.P. (C) No. 1181 of 2014), whereas he is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1273 of 2014. After the hypotheticated/mortgaged assets were purchased by petitioner -M/s. Gyan Press Metal Pvt. Ltd., the said land of Plot No. M -8, 6th Phase was allotted to it vide Letter No. 1693/ADA dated 1.8.2005, possession of which was given to it on 4.12.2008. However, a lease deed was executed on 22.3.2010 in favour of petitioner -M/s. Gyan Press Metal Pvt. Ltd. Said M/s. Gyan Press Metal Pvt. Ltd. failed to run its industrial unit for one reason or the other. In that event, M/s. Gyan Press Metal Pvt. Ltd. in terms of clause 6(v) of the lease deed executed the deed of surrender on 7.9.2010 in favour of AIADA for re -allotment of the land, in question, in favour of M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited (petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1181 of 2014). At the same time, M/s. Gyan Press Metal Pvt. Ltd. vide its letter dated 7.9.2010 informed the AIADA about the execution of deed of surrender in its favour with a request to re -allot the plot, in question, to M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited. Simultaneously, the petitioner -M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited also wrote a letter to the AIADA on 8.9.2010 requesting therein to re -allot the land, in question, in its favour. According to petitioner -M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited, when the land was surrendered with a request to re -allot to the petitioner, the petitioner, who was having an industrial unit, wanted to export it, submitted a detailed project report, which was placed before the Project Clearance Committee (in short 'PCC') on whose clearance the matter was placed before the Land Allotment Committee (in short 'LAC') for allotment of land in favour of the the petitioner -M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited who had been nominated under the deed of surrender.
(3.) FURTHER case of the petitioner - M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited is that its case was considered in the PCC/LAC meeting of AIADA and the project of the petitioner was approved and then recommendation was made for transfer of lease hold right/allotment of land in favour of petitioner - M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited. While the matter was under process of settlement, the AIADA held its 100th meeting on 23.2.2011 wherein a decision was taken by the Board of Directors of AIADA not to allot the land on the basis of deed of surrender. At that time, altogether 17 cases were there like that of petitioner - M/s. P.P.G. Steel Pvt. Limited seeking allotment on the basis of deed of surrender. However, the Board of Directors again held its 101st meeting on 30.9.2011 and reconsidered the cases of 17 industrial units, including the petitioner's unit, and thereby they came to a decision to consider to re -allot the land, in question, in favour of 17 industrial units, as the deeds of surrender in all 17 cases were prior to 23.2.2011, when the Board of Directors had taken decision of not allotting the land pursuant to deed of surrender.;