BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 17-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 82 of 2022)
MARCH 17, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Lease: Conversion of land from leasehold to freehold in view
of policy formulated by the State – Entitlement to – On facts,
allotment of commercial plots to the petitioner company by the State
Industrial Development Corporation-UPSIDC, land allotted on 90
years lease basis – Building plan for construction over allotted
land sanctioned – Construction completed and issuance of partial
completion certificate – Thereafter, policy formulated by the
respondent no. 1 for growth of tourism by setting up theme/
amusements parks – Policy laid down conditions and incentives,
available to theme parks – Thereafter, proposal by the petitioner
for recognition of its project as a theme based mall – Petitioner
then sought conversion of the subject land from leasehold to
freehold – Non-acceptance of the proposal of the petitioner to
convert subject land from leasehold to freehold as per the policy
formulated and thereafter amended – Challenge to – Held: When
the land had already been leased to the petitioner and the petitioner
is also holding the same as lessee under the lease deeds executed
for the purpose, no reason, justification, logic or rationale that
such leasehold rights be converted into freehold rights – Amended
policy relied upon by the petitioner came into existence only after
second completion certificate had been issued to the petitioner and,
the mall had been put into operation – No stipulation found in the
original policy or its amendment that it could be applied with
retrospective effect and to override the existing legal rights as also
the existing legal obligations - Policy in question with its amendment
is of no application whatsoever in relation to the subject land and
the project – Thus, the claim of the petitioner for freehold rights in
relation to the subject land cannot be accepted – Furthermore, the
petitioner seems to have developed a mall on the subject land through
private investment and there is no participation of the State
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1053
1053
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1054
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Government or any public sector undertaking or any instrumentality
of the State therein – Thus, the claim of the petitioner to seek benefits
flowing from the Office Memo is struck down.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The entire case of the petitioner-company,
asserting its right to get the subject land converted from leasehold
to freehold, is premised on the policy formulated by the
respondent No. 1 on 06.11.2013 and amended on 03.05.2016.
The petitioner would assume that the said policy with its
amendment is applicable to its project and to the subject land.
This assumption is without any legal basis and the claim of the
petitioner turns out to be hollow and baseless because neither
the original policy formulated on 06.11.2013 nor its amendment
on 03.05.2016 have any application to the subject land or to the
project of the petitioner. [Para 15][1088-F-G]
1.2. The subject land was allotted to the petitioner on
05.08.2006 after acceptance of its offer of allotment of the said
industrial plot by UPSIDC. Clause 14(a) of the allotment letter
dated 05.08.2006 had been clear and unequivocal that land was
allotted on 90 years lease basis. Further, it was provided in clause
10(b) of the allotment letter that tripartite lease deed of the built-
up premises would be executed where the allottee of the
developer shall be the lessee; UPSIDC shall be the lessor; and
the developer (the petitioner) shall be a confirming party. The
lease deed dated 23.08.2006 in relation to 37208 sq. mtrs. of the
allotted land carried the covenants, inter alia, that the lessee (the
petitioner) will not, without the consent of lessor (UPSIDC),
transfer, sublet, relinquish, mortgage or assign its interest in the
demised premises or in the buildings standing thereon with the
other requirements [vide clause 3 (j)]. It was also stipulated that
the allottee shall have to abide by the general terms and conditions
of allotment of UPSIDC [vide clause 13]. It appears that in this
lease deed dated 23.08.2006, the stipulation regarding tripartite
lease deed did not as such occur but the said clause 13 made all
the general conditions of allotment binding on the petitioner.
Moreover, in the other lease deed dated 30.03.2009 in rel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.