GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES- 419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92 No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/2689-2699 Dated : 31.03.2010 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. The minutes circulated vide letter No.2678-47 dated 18.3.2010 have been withdrawn and the amended minutes are as under:- A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was convened on 08.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which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. 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 The cases discussed were as under:-
Transcript
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
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. The minutes circulated vide letter No.2678-47 dated 18.3.2010 have been withdrawn and the amended minutes are as under:-
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. 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 September, 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 and stated that no UEI charges are, in any case, payable by him as he has paid surcharge along with his conversion application. 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. ILMAC observed that the branch should process the matter in file in view of the contentions of the applicant for perusal of the Competent Authority.
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 Percentage1. Shri Darshan Mehta - Partner - 1/3rd2. Smt. Rajni Mahajan - Partner - 1/3rd3. 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.
1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)DCI - Convenor
(M.S. Garg)DCI – Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 22.03.2010 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 22.03.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. Plot No.202, Okhla Industrial Estate. The applicant has applied for conversion of property from lease hold to free hold on dated 30th Oct., 2009. It was reported on file by the Monitoring Committee of Hon’ble High Court that misuse and encroachment over government land persists. The report of the Monitoring Committee is of 2007. Thereafter a Show-Cause-Notice was issued vide this office letter No.F.1095-97 dated 5.10.2007 (C-377). The Estate Manager vide his report dated 28.7.2009 (C/459-462) indicates that there is no encroachment on the government land whereas he has reported that some area within the building has been occupied by Smt. Ritu Nanda for running Insurance services at the premises. The lease agreement in this regard, as stated by the Estate Manager, stipulates that the period of renting is from 1.5.2007 to 30.4.2010. After receiving the free hold application, report from the Estate Manager was called and the Estate Manager vide his report dated 5th March, 2010 (C-645) clearly stipulates as under:-“As directed, I visited the plot No.202, OIE and the inspection report is as under:-
a) The building contains basement, ground Floor, 1st Floor (mezzanine floor, 2nd and 3rd floor.
b) The basement (1/4th part of plot area) is used for air conditioning plant
c) G.Floor, 1st Floor & 2nd Floor is with Mudra Max Pvt. Ltd. It was informed by Sh. Manoj Sethi that M/s Mudra Max Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in Finance, Investment business.
d) So called Mezzanine floor, which can be called a complete 1st floor is with Escolife I.T. Solution. During the inspection, it was found that a board of 18 companies were installed and it is very clear that 18 companies are working from that floor.
e) On the backside of gound floor, it was seen during inspection that 3 computers has been installed and 3 persons were found working on it. Sh. Manoj Sethi informed that this area belongs to “M/s Standard Auto
Spares Pvt. Ltd.” which is having 2 Directors namely Shri Manoj Sethi & Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal, but no evidence/paper proof regarding the firm except two bills of Standard Auto Spares Pvt. Ltd. of B-235, Naraina Industrial Area is submitted.
f) No Encroachment on government land was seen during the visit except front side government space was used for parking, tree-plantation and horticulture beautification.”It is evident from the report that misuse of property still continues
and number of sublettees are more than prescribed under Land Management Guidelines. Shri Manoj Sethi on behalf of Standard Auto Spares Pvt. Ltd., is present before the Committee and states that there is only two sublettees namely Max Mundhra & M/s Ritu Nanda Insurance Services Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Escolife IT Services Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Uchini Financial Services) and both are IT companies. They further assured that they will submit documentary evidence related to ongoing activities done by both the sublettees. In this regard, there is an order vide No.221/IT/OIE/69/99/4058-4096 dated 13.7.1999 in which Hon’ble L.G. has ordered for the addition of sub-para 5 in the para 6 pertaining to the subletting in the Land Management Guidelines. The sub-para read as under:-
“The Units involved in software development and IT enabling services will be exempted from the purview of rules of the subletting”.
In view of this order, the allottee should produce the relevant documents like lease deed & agreement copy with the sub-lettee so that the order of the Hon’ble L.G. may be followed in this case also. The allottee has been given a time period of 10 days to submit the relevant documents and may also be called on 12.4.2010. The Estate Manager may also be directed to submit a report based on the documents submitted by the allottee related to misuse and others before 12.4.2010.
2. The case of shed No.17, Okhla Industrial Area phase-III has been taken by the Committee and it was discussed that since the alllottee has paid the UIE charges in respect of Change in Constitution along with interest, there is no requirement of sending the file to Law Department for obtaining the comments regarding charging of the surcharge at this point of time. It is, therefore, the Committee recommends for the conversion of lease hold to free hold.
3. 249-A, Okhla Industrial Estate. The issue is related to interest on subletting vide order dated 31.1.2008. It was decided to charge @18% simple interest on all belated payments which includes subletting also. The matter was recommended by ILMAC in the meeting dated 2nd March, 2010 in the case of plot No.57, Badli Industrial Estate and Plot No.20, FIE Patparganj. The issue was deliberated in detail by the Committee and recommendation was to be sent in the respective file to C.I. for his approval. After approval, it is applicable in all similar cases for charging simple interest against subletting. DCI Badli Industrial Estate and Patparganj stated that the issue has been approved by the C.I. and a copy of the approval of C.I. is required to be obtained by the branch and should submit the same in this file for further calculating the interest to unauthorized subletting.4. The case of M/s Alok Electric Corporation, Application No.26372 was taken up by the ILMAC for change in Constitution as per the order of Hon’ble L.G. vide which the Hon’ble L.G. has relaxed the ban of additional/inclusion of outsiders in the partnership firms in respect of industrial plots under the relocation scheme subject to payment of 50% UEI charges by the incoming partners. The draft order appears to be in order. Therefore a circular in this respect may be issued immediately after the approval of Commissioner of Industries.
5. The case of plot No.S-23, Phase-I Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by ILMAC as per the
recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Viond Vohra, applicant appeared before the Committee. The applicant Shri Vinod Vohra is a subsequent purchaser through GPA and Agreement to Sell. As per the report of Estate Manager, nothing adverse has been reported. The construction has been completed as per form D and composition charges for the same has been realized. The ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Shri Vinod Vohra subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
6. The case of plot No.S-52, Phase-I Badli ndustrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by ILMAC as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Ajay Garg, partner of the firm appeared before the Committee. The applicant is a subsequent purchaser through GPA and Agreement to Sell. As per the report of Estate Manager, nothing adverse has been reported. The construction has been completed as per form D and composition charges for the same has been realized. The applicant has furnished valid consent order from DPCC for the item of manufacturing. The ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
7. The case of plot No.468, Narela Allotment Cell in which Smt. Kusum Singhal along with her husband Shri S.K. Singhal present before the ILMAC on 22.3.2010. The case of the possession of the above plot was discussed in detail and also the matter of possession of plot is lying pending in Public Grievances Commission. At the outset, the officials of the DSIIDC have submitted that they have handed over the possession of the above plot and they have shown the required documents i.e. possession letter along with lay out plan but the allottee submitted on this that he has not taken any possession till today at site and further shown several letters written to DSIIDC stated that she has not taken the possession of the plot. In this regard, the branch in charge of Narela Allotment Cell shall examine
the letter written by the allottee regarding possession and also directions of the Public Grievances Cell may be taken into consideration in the disposal of this matter of possession of plot. The applicant was also informed that the last date to construct the building is 31.12.2010 (Amnesty Scheme).
8. The case of 221, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III has been taken up by the ILMAC and discussed in detail. It has been decided that in view of the court order, the property vest in HUF right from the allotment. Therefore, the conversion will be made subject to fulfillment of other formalities in the name of HUF without surcharge. Regarding clarification whether there is any lien of bank, the applicant stated that there is no lien with any bank and they will submit an affidavit to this effect to the department along with originals lease deed. The concerned branch will give them a letter to submit the original lease deed. Branch concerned may also confirm the fact that there is no lien from the bank concerned by asking the bank to furnish an NOC. On the point whether the unit is functional or not, the applicant clarified that a software technology park is functioning for which they have the permission from the department. The allottee should submit few transaction details with their clients for use of Software Technology Park.
9 The case of M/s Pankaj Dial Industries,shed No.10 DSIIDC, Lawrance Road was taken up in the ILMAC for transfer of name/change of constitution in the name of Mrs. Shashi Behl. This matter is also came up earlier in the ILMAC in the meeting dated 1.2.2010. Since the branch concerned of DSIIDC has informed that shed fully paid and the applicant has deposited the necessary transfer charges and also furnished the requisite documentary evidence of purchases i.e. GPA, SPA, agreement to sell, NOC and Indemnity Bond. In view of the above, the ILMAC recommends change of constitution in favour of Smt.Shashi Behl subject to payment of dues, if any and as per Land Management Guidelines.
10. The case of S-20, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II was placed before the ILMAC. Shri Naveen Pal Singhal, representative of the firm is appeared before the Committee. The Committee is of the considered view that in the light of the court order dated Feb., 23, 2010 of the Hon’ble High Court, a fresh inspection is required to be carried out with reference to violation, if any, and functioning of the unit. Once the report is available, file should be submitted to Hon’ble L.G.(Lessor) with full facts of the case for decision. 11. The case of M/s Gopal Corporation, 240, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III is placed before the Committee. M/s Gopal Corporation is a sublettee company at plot No.240, Okhla Industrial Estate was incorporated on 29.6.2006 and the free hold application was submitted with the department on dated 18.4.2006, therefore, no subletting charges is leviable against this subletting as from the filing of free hold application it freezes of calculating subletting charges and interest thereon. Further, it has been already clarified that if the subletting unit is functional in that case it will be constructed as the industrial plot is under industrial use. Hence as approved by Commissioner of Industries, the ILMAC re-iterates to recommend to convert the said plot from lease hold to free hold.
12. Flat No.243, FFC Okhla. This flat was originally allotted to Shri Vijay Kumar Raina and Shri Kawal Jit Singh has applied for change in constitution in his favour. Shri Kawal Jit Singh, the applicant appeared before the Committee. There are certain changes by virtue of partnership deed and dissolution deed in between. Earlier there was variation in signatures and the matter was pending. Subsequently with the prior approval of the Law Department, an Indemnity Bond was proposed to be obtained from the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted an Indemnity Bond and Affidavit declaring that all the signatures and the partnership deed and dissolution deed are genuine and at any stage, in
future, if it is detected that the signature has been fabricated, in that case the change in constitution/higher purchase will be withdrawn by the authorities and in such situation he is also ready to face legal proceedings against him. Copy of Indemnity Bond and Affidavit is placed at C/205-206 and C-210 respectively. Accordingly, the ILMAC is of considered view to recommend the case to allow change in constitution in favour of Shri Kawal Jit Singh subject to payment of dues, if any and as per Land Management Guidelines.
13. Flat No.F-260, FFC Okhla. This flat was originally allotted to Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and Shri K.K. Mehta has applied for change in constitution in his favour. Shri K.K. Mehta, the applicant appeared before the Committee. There are certain changes by virtue of partnership deed and dissolution deed in between. Earlier there was variation in signatures and the matter was pending. Subsequently with the prior approval of the Law Department, an Indemnity Bond was proposed to be obtained from the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted an Indemnity Bond and Affidavit declaring that all the signatures and the partnership deed and dissolution deed are genuine and at any stage, in future, if it is detected that the signature has been fabricated, in that case the change in constitution/higher purchase will be withdrawn by the authorities and in such situation he has also ready to face legal proceedings against him. Copy of Indemnity Bond and Affidavit is placed at C/298-300 and C-314-315 respectively. Accordingly, the ILMAC is of considered view to recommend the case to allow change in constitution in favour of Shri K.K. Mehta subject to payment of dues, if any and as per Land Management Guidelines.
14. E-221, FFC Okhla. The plot was originally allotted to Shri Krishan Chander on rental basis by virtue of partnership deed, dissolution deed, submitted by the applicant on dated 8.8.2006 at C/124, and completion of other formalities. The ILMAC is of considered view to recommend to allow change in constitution in favour of Smt. Bindu Chawla, Proprietor M/s
Regent Switchgears subject to payment of dues, if any and as per Land Management Guidelines.
15. Plot No.895, Narela Industrial Complex. This plot was originally allotted to Shri Devi Singh who appeared before the Committee and stated that he has never sold his plot and he could not execute his lease deed as his original allotment letter as well his school certificates etc. were lost 7-8 years back when he was constructing his house. He was asked why he did not approach the department for the last 7-8 years. He replied that he did not approach the department because he did not have any papers in his support. A sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Vishva Mohan, JCI/GM DSIIDC to ascertain the true facts and recommend the proper recommendations for the ILMAC on 12.4.2010. The Members of the sub-committee are as follows:-
Convener.16 The case of plot No.137, FIE Patparganj was considered for conversion from lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Shekhar Singhania, applicant appeared before the Committee. It was observed that the applicant is a subsequent purchaser. The chain of GPA and agreement to sell is complete. The construction is with the last extension granted as per form D. Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager. Further there is a subletting reported up to 31.7.2006 i.e. date of filing application which has been paid by the applicant except for the period from 1.11.1999 to 31.10.2001 for which the applicant had paid the charges through Bankers Cheque dated 13.3.2002 and 12.10.202 respectively. These cheques could not be en cashed due to certain administrative reasons. The applicant offers to get them
revalidated. The ILMAC is of the view that Bankers cheque may be returned to the applicant to get them revalidated and re-submit the same with the department. Since there is no lapse on the part of the applicant, no interest would be leviable in this regard. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicant subject to payment of subletting charges for the period mentioned above and other outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines. The Committee further observed that any such kind of en cashing of dues or government revenue received from the allottees/ public, the same should be immediately get it en cashed and to ensure the money due for the government account would be credited without any delay. In this regard a circular may also be issued in the department to strict to this direction.
17. Shed No.100 Okhla Industrial Estate - The plot was allotted to Mishra Automobile Pvt. Ltd. and the allottee has applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold. Shri Ajay Kapoor, representative of the applicant appeared before the Committee. In 1984 for the constructed shed a sale deed was executed in favour of the allottee and for rent sale deed was executed in favour of the allottee. The applicant has paid conversion charges, subletting charges and other dues. The applicant has demolished the shed and constructed building thereupon on the allotted land without waiting the building plan sanctioned from MCD. The Committee is of the considered view to recommend to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold. Prior to allow conversion, the branch should refer the case of unauthorized construction to MCD to take proper action as per their byelaws as the MCD is regularly building byelaws under the MCD Act. The matter about the building is required to be apprised to C.I. before allowing conversion.
18. The matter of plot No.1654, Narela Industrial Complex was placed before ILMAC. The allottee Shri Vijay Anand is present in person. In this case, the allottee has already constructed the factory and doing the
work of Plastic Moulding items as stated by him. The allottee had applied for execution of lease deed in 1994 and had also made payment to the collector of stamps towards stamp duty vide challan No.16643/93-94 for Rs.13279/-. The concerned branch informed that the original file of the said plot has been missing since many years and a part file has been constructed in 2005. ILMAC decided that duplicate set of lease deed documents may be issued and the allottee may get them stamped from the Collector of Stamps after the due verification of the challan/payment which has been paid by the applicant in 1994. After getting it stamped from Collector of Stamps, the branch may further process the case for execution of lease deed.
19. Shed No.25,54,56,70 & 161, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III. In all the five cases, the applicant applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold. The cases were rejected by the competent authority as they did not clarify because of certain violations due to which the applicants did not clarify under the scheme. They have applied for refund. The matter was sent to accounts branch in which it was advised to get subletting charges, interest thereon and other dues deposited first. First they deposit the amount, thereafter the refund can be given to the applicant after due approval of the competent authority. The ILMAC of the considered view that branch should write letters to the applicants accordingly.
20. 781, Narela Industrial park. This case has taken up by the Committee in which Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, Proprietor M/s Allied Industries appeared before the Committee. It was found that there is a lack of clarity in dealing with the matter of conversion from lease hold to free hold. It is, therefore, the Divisional Manager, Narela may examine the whole issue passed on the documents available in the file and put up a typed self contained note narrating all the facts.
21. The case of M/s R.K. Offset Printers bearing application
No.31782 was considered by ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor Shri Hem Chand Saxena has expired and now his wife has requested for mutation of plot in her favour as proprietor of the firm. On the basis of documents submitted by the party, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Shri Hem Chand Saxena due to death and allows induction of his wife Smt. Om Wati as proprietor of the firm without payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within legal heirs of the deceased allotee as per Land Management Guidelines.
22. M/s Alankrit Handicrafts was allotted plot No.208, OIE, Ph.III through its prop. Smt. Pushpa Talwar. Later on, she constituted a company namely M/s Alankrit Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. In this company she made her husband one of the Director and shareholder of the company. Further, the company converted into partnership comprising Smt. Pushpa Talwar’s husband i.e. one of the shareholder of the company and their two sons as partners. On this account the Department levied an unearned increase of Rs.20,24,190/- and an interest of Rs.29.75,559/- and demand was raised. The allottee did not pay the amount towards 50% of an unearned increase of the prevailing market value of the plot and had filed a suit in the Court against this demand.
The Court vide its order dated 4th February, 2009 quashed this demand giving reference of the Land Management Guidelines and lease deed which stipulates as below :-
“where deed has been registered addition/deletion and substitution of family members shall be allowed without any charge but on execution of a regular conveyance/gift deed”.
In their order the Hon’ble Court has mentioned that while constituting a Pvt. Ltd. company, the husband of the Lessee was one of the Director and shareholder of the company which is within a family definition and while
again converting from Pvt. Ltd. company to Partnership firm, the members of the partnership firm are also within the definition of the family, therefore, no charges towards unearned increase is levy able. The issue for which the file was placed before ILMAC is that whether appeal may require to be filed against the decision of Hon’ble Court or the decision of Hon’ble Court may be accepted and freehold application may be processed further, accordingly. The ILMAC is of considered view that since all the changes are within the family, hence the decision of Hon’ble Court is required to be followed and action in the matter may be taken accordingly.
23. The case of M-18, Phase-I Badli Industrial Estate was considered for conversion from lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. The case was also discussed earlier in the ILMAC on 26.10.2009 and again on 4.1.2010 when the Committee had recommended to allow conversion in his favour. However, while calculating the amount of outstanding dues, it was pointed out by the Accounts Branch that there appears to be some changes in the shareholding of the company as existed at the time of approval of change in constitution as of now. Accounts Branch had requested for clarification as to whether the 40% rebate in conversion charges, in the instant case or not. Accordingly, the case was placed again before the ILMAC by the concerned branch vide detailed note from page No.-181-184 of relevant file wherein they have recommended for allowing rebate to the applicant. Brief facts of the case are that the plot was allotted to an individual Sh. Hira Singh who had subsequently formed private limited company in the year 1985-86 in the name and style of M/s Jupitar Polytex India Pvt. Ltd. The department had realized applicable unearned increase charges under the Land Management Guidelines treating it as 100% transfer of holding and not on proportionate share as is done in the case of partnership concerned. Further, the company is a separate legal entity wherein the individual
directors or share holders have no separate individual entity and all acts and omissions and commissions are the liability of the company and not of individual share holders. Beside the Land Management Guidelines are silent about the levy of any unearned increase in case of changes in shareholding and only recognized changes from proprietor ship or partnership to a private limited company or vice-versa for levying unearned increase. It was also pointed out to the ILMAC that the conversion scheme also does not mention about taking surcharge in such type of cases. It was therefore, observed that considering the levy of full UEI charges changes on 100% share transfer basis and not on proportionate share transfer at the time of allowing private limited company, no charges are levyable for further changes in shareholding including sur-charge on conversion feet. ILMAC, accordingly recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of M/s Jupitar Polytex India Pvt. Ltd treating it as original allottee and without levying any surcharge @ 33 1/3% and to allow 40% rebate in conversion charges and payment of outstanding dues, if any as per guidelines. ILMAC further recommended that concerned branch should also take approval of the Commissioner of Industries before allowing conversion.
24. The Case of M/S Bharat Marble Traders, - RL Application No.26372 - This case was taken up by the ILMAC in its meeting on 15.3.2010. The applicant ,Shri I.P.Gupta, was present before the committee. Shri Gupta, informed the committee that initially he alongwith his wife and father were 3 partners in the said firm. His father died on 11.4.97 and after his death, he alongwith wife remained partners in the said firm and share of his father has gone to him and then to his wife. He expressed before the committee that since the changes are within legal heirs, no , UEI charges should be levied in his case. However, as per approval of the office of CI in July, 2009 , the COC was approved with payment of UEI charges on the shares of his deceased father transferred to his wife. The provisional UEI
charges of Rs.2,550/- were however, paid by Shri Gupta, as the amount was meager and he did not protest earlier. After hearing Shri Gupta , the ILMAC was of the view that concerned Relocation branch of DSIIDC should examine this case in light of Land Management Guidelines and put up in the next meeting.
The case has now been scrutinized by the concerned branch and was considered in the ILMAC on 22.3.2010 .After scrutiny of this case , the branch has observed that one of the partners i.e. Shri Ram Saran Dass father of the applicant Sh. I.P.Gupta, died on 11.4.97 whereas this unit was held eligible for allotment on 28th March, 1998 . The allotment of specific plot was made even later through draw of lots, on 6.6.2003.
This case , therefore, falls under clause 1(VI) of the LMG, which states that if changes are done between the date of application and date of offer of allotment/demand letter, no UEI charges should be levied. Accordingly, UEI charges are not applicable as per the provision of LMG. Moreover, after the death of father , his share went to his son being the only legal heir and then to his wife. Both these changes are within the family and do not attract UEI as per the provision of LMG.
Accordingly, ILMAC recommends that the change of constitution may be accepted without UEI charges .
25. The Case of M/S Asian Industries - RL Application No.22039 - This case was taken up by the ILMAC on 15.3.2010 when Sh. Manish Chandok applicant was present . Shri Chandhok explained to the committee that he alongwith his grandmother Smt. Shakuntla were partner in the said firm. His grandmother expired on 4th January, 2002 and specific allotment of the plot ,at Narela Relocation, was made through draw of lots on 6.6.03. However, he explained that after the death of Smt. Shakuntla , the applicant’s father and uncle were the only two legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Shakuntla, grandmother of the applicant. Both of these legal heirs
namely Sh.Yoginder Mohan Chandhok & Sh. Chander Mohan Chandhok the name have relinquished their shares of the applicant. The applicant further submitted that since the changes were within the legal heirs, after the death of grandmother , no UEI charges should be levied in his case. However, when his case was approved by the Competent Authority in December, 2007, the UEI charges were levied assuming that changes had occurred outside the family definition of LMG. Since , he was left with no alternative , he deposited the provisional UEI charges of Rs.7,24,625/- on 6.11.09 under protest. He pleaded before the ILMAC that changes in the UEI is un-justified and should not be levied on him as the changes were within the legal heirs after the death of his grandmother and after relinquishing the shares by his father and uncle. ILMAC was of the view that his case may be thoroughly scrutinized by the concerned branch of Relocation Division (DSIIDC) and put up in the next meeting.
Relocation Division after examining the case again thoroughly came out with the submissions that the Class I legal heirs had relinquished their shares in favour of the Class II legal heir that is the applicant.
ILMAC recommends that since the changes are within the legal heirs, therefore as per provision of the clause 3(III), of LMG , no UEI is chargeable. However, approval of CI & CMD, DSIIDC may be obtained in view of the earlier decision of the Competent Authority, which needs to be amended as per the above recommendations of the ILMAC. Accordingly, part payment, deposited under protest by the applicant is liable to be refunded by the Corporation.
26. The Case of M/S Manas Industrial Corpn - RL Application No.11011 - This case was considered earlier in the meeting of ILMAC on 15.3.2010 when the Applicant , Mrs. Savita Mahajan alongwith her husband were present for their case for change of constitution of the firm. In this case, earlier there were 3 partners namely Shri Darshan Mehta, Smt. Rajani
Mahajan & Smt. Savita Mahajan at the time of filing of application for allotment of plot under the Relocation Scheme. Lateron, there was dissolution of partnership on 12.3.04 , when two partners namely Shri Dharshan Mehta, & Smt. Rajani Mahajan retired and Smt. Savitri Mahajan became Prop. of this firm.
The allotment of the specific plot however was made to this firm lateron 26.8.04 through draw of lots after the dissolution . The firm after making full payment of the cost of the plot approached DSIIDC for possession of the plot. They were informed that since there is a change in constitution of the firm , they will have to apply for the same. Accordingly, she applied for COC in September, 2009. Since the dissolution of the partnership was outside the family, Mrs. Mahajan was informed that she will have to pay the UEI charges since the two outgoing partners are outside family definition. The UEI charges shall be applicable as notified on the date of request of COC made by her as per LMG. She expressed that since the dissolution of her firm was prior to specific allotment of plot , no UEI charges be levied on her as per LMG.
Further, during discussions in the ILMAC, it was also informed by the members from CI office that UEI rates are being levied on the date of actual transaction and regularization charges from the date of actual transaction till the request for COC. This is being followed by CI office as per orders dated 27.9.1999 issued, through which the amendment was done in the LMG for calculating/levying of UEI charges .
However, the Relocation branch of DSIIDC informed in ILMAC that in DSIIDC ,this order is not being followed as there were no instructions or intimation of this order during in the past over 10 years. As such ,it was decided by the ILMAC that Relocation branch of DSIIDC may examine this case and put up in the next meeting with full facts.
The Relocation branch of DSIIDC has now scrutinized this case. There are basically two issues in this case . One is that whether the change of constitution occurred prior to allotment. The 2nd issue is of calculation of the UEI charges as per LMG by which the date of applications is taken for calculating UEI charges or as per orders dated 27.9.99 by which the effective date for UEI charging was amended as date of actual transaction.
As far as 1st issue is concerned , the Relocation branch is of the view that there is no doubt that specific allotment of the plot , in this case, was made after the changes had occurred but PEL (Provisional Eligibility Letter) was issued prior to the changes in which the firm was made eligible for 150 Sq.mt. plot and even part demand of the cost of the plot was made. Hence ,this case can not be taken as change of constitution between date of application and date of offer of allotment letter/demand letter, so as to make the changes without charges .
As far as 2nd issue is concerned , there is no doubt that the DSIIDC had been charging UEI rates on the date of application as per LMG clause 2 (ii) a but since the office of CI is making calculation of UEI charges on the basis of the amended orders dated 27.9.1999 , it would be better if we have the uniform policy in CI and DSIIDC for the same.
Accordingly, ILMAC is of the view that both DSIIDC and Office of CI should have uniform policy /method for calculating the UEI charges as per orders dated 27.9.99 in which effective date for charging UEI is the actual date of transaction/charges with regularization charges/interest till the date of application as per LMG. .
27. 470, FIE Patparganj –– The case was last discussed in the Committee on 3.11.2009 and 9.11.2009. In this case the Committee had observed that there is no link of ownership of property supported by the registered document as there are about six time changes in title of property
in different names from time to time and though the present holder of the property is possessing a registered document of Agreement of sale in his name, however, two documents executed prior to the present ownership but after 24.9.2001, are not registered under the Registration Act. It was further observed that while applying for the conversion from leasehold to freehold, the present owner of the property has paid stamp duty on these unregistered agreements to sell as per the prevailing rates at that time. In this regard, the Committee had observed that merely payment of stamp duty does not tantamount to transfer of ownership. The committee had thus observed that the agreement to sell produced by the applicant are unregistered though they were required to be mandatory registered because they have been executed after 24.9.2001 since when the Government has made amendment in the Registration Act and the registration of agreement to sell has been made mandatory. Accordingly, the committee had asked for the registered documents in this regard before the conversion case is allowed.
The applicant had appeared before the Committee and submitted that the decision of the Government is arbitrary in as much as the agreement to sell executed on 23.9.2001 is a valid document whereas the agreement to sell executed on 24.9.2001 is a invalid document due to amendment in the Registration Act. He further explained that there is a provision in DDA for such peculiar conditions and the department should follow the same. The Committee had informed the applicant that the requirement of registration has been made applicable from a particular date vide notification in official gazette and as such made applicable from the said date etc. In view of this peculiar nature of the case, the Committee had considered that a clarification may be obtained from the Department of Law & Justice and also from the Inspector General of Registration.
Now, the clarification has been received from Law Department of Govt of NCT of Delhi and they have opined that :-
“The issue examined in this file was that whether unregistered agreement to sell executed on or after 24.09.2001 can be considered as an adequate proof of transaction where applicant has paid stamp duty on the said document and can be considered for conversion of plot from lease hold to freehold. After analyzing the peculiar facts of that case that all the powers of attorneys in all six transactions are duly registered and out of six agreements to sell, two earliest agreements to sell did not require registration as there was no legal requirement, two latest agreement to sell were registered, the latest Agreement to sell is in favour of the applicant. The third and fourth agreement to sell, though these don’t pertain to the applicant, but he has paid the stamp duty payable under these agreements to sell, with the Collector of Stamps.
Since, the conversion is allowed only in case of the last power of attorney holder and the documents in his favour are duly registered, further all the GPAs showing the chain of transactions in favour of the applicant are duly registered, in view of peculiar facts of this case, this Department opined that requirement of guidelines (8) in respect of adequate proof of transaction has been fulfilled. The administrative Department was also advised to obtain indemnity bond in its favour from the applicant.
In view of above, the opinion rendered by this Department in both the cases are on different issues and different facts. There is no ambiguity in the opinions rendered by this Department in different cases. This Department reiterates both opinions; as aforesaid.”
Further, the clarification from the Inspector General of Registration has also been received and they while expressing their views have advised the department to take appropriate steps as per the applicable acts in this
regard and the Scheme of conversion being followed by the department. They have also desired that if required the case may be discussed. The matter was accordingly placed before the ILMAC today. It was agreed by the committee that considering the clear views received from the law department there remains no doubt now and the applicant’s case can now be processed by treating the documents produced by the applicant as complete albeit with an indemnity bond as suggested by the Law Department. It was further observed by the committee that a general clarification may also be issued by the concerned branch in partial modification of the clarifications issued on 5.12.2006. ILMAC accordingly considers to allow conversion from leasehold to freehold in favour of the applicant, in terms of the opinion of the law department, subject to production of registered indemnity bond indemnifying the department against any loss, damage etc. on account of unregistered Agreement to sell, and payment of outstanding dues, if any, and fulfilling other conditions of conversion scheme/guidelines. ILMAC further recommended to the Land Coordination branch to issue necessary instructions in this regard after obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Industries so that the clarification is made uniformly applicable on all such case.
1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(M.S. Garg)DCI - Convenor
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 05.04.2010 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 05.04.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman2. Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC3. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member 4. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member5. Sh. M.S. Garg, DCI – Member Convener6. Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. – MemberThe cases discussed were as under:-
1. Shed No.157, Okhla Industrial Estate. This case is related to conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of M/s Pran Nath Kapoor & Sons Pvt. Ltd.. The plot was originally allotted to M/s Pran Nath Kapoor & Sons Pvt. Ltd. with following shareholders:-
Shri R.K. Malhotra & Sh. S.C. Malhotra are brothers whereas Shri G.D. Malhotra is father of R.K. Malhotra & Sh. S.C. Malhotra, shareholders. Subsequent to the death of Shri G.D. Malhotra, the shares were further distributed amongst remaining shareholders as stated by the applicant. After the expiry of Sh. S.C. Malhotra all the shares were transferred to either HUF or Shri Vikas Malhotra s/o Sh. S.C. Malhotra & Smt. Sheel Malhotra w/o Sh. S.C. Malhotra. The department allowed induction of Sh. Vikas Malhotra and Smt. Sheel Malhotra vide letter dated 24.2.1993(C-215 on record). Further Shri S.K. Verma, Accountant on behalf of the company has appeared before the ILMAC and stated that all shares have been inherited by HUF to Shri Vikas Malhotra & Mrs. Sheel Malhotra. He further stated that HUF comprises of two members i.e. Mrs. Sheel Malhotra and Shri Vikas Malhotra i.e. mother and son. He further stated that the share of Shri R.K. Malhotra was transferred to Shri S.C. Malhotra, his brother as per family settlement. The allottee is required to submit an affidavit along with return submitted to Registrar of Companies in this regard. If it is confirmed that shares have been transferred within the family, free hold is recommended to be allowed without surcharge.
2. The case of plot No.118, FIE Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by ILMAC as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri L.D. Tighatia, representative of the company appeared before the ILMAC. The construction of the building is reported to be within the period of last extension for construction granted to the applicant. The chain
of transfers from original allottee to present purchaser is reported to be complete. It is observed that because the agreement to sell is in the name of an individual and the individual along with her husband has formed a private limited company which is reported to be functioning at the premises occupying the entire area, accordingly the subletting charges with interest as calculated on the entire covered area @ Rs.2/- per sq.ft. has been paid and realized. ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Smt. Shalini Jain subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
3. Flat No.D-171, FFC Okhla. The allottee applied for change in constitution on dated 20.5.2005 from Swadeshi Engineering Enterprises to Swadeshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Whereas the applicant also informed that the said company was having its registered office at D-171, FFC Okhla, The certificate is of dated 16.11.2004 (C-122 on file). The Committee is of the considered view that subletting is to be charged w.e.f. 16.11.2004 to 19.5.2005 against the said unauthorized subletting. Subsequent to the application for change in constitution, the applicant again informed that they have again changed the constitution from private limited company to Swadeshi Engineering Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Shri Anurag Dua. Therefore, the Committee is of the considered view to charge composition charges for above two changes and Shri Anurag Dua agreed to pay the amount. Further, the Committee also recommends to allow conversion of flat to hire purchase subject to recovery of other dues and hire purchase cost. No rent adjustment is recommended as the applicant applied for change in constitution on 27.7.2009 (C-174 on record) which has been affected after opting hire purchase.
4. There is a representation from Leather Complex Weavers Association dated 25.3.2010 requesting to solve the long standing problems of the artisans working in the Wazirpur Industrial area and the application itself Commissioner made remarks that this matter may be examined by ILMAC and also suggested for calling the concerned persons in the meeting of ILMAC. Accordingly, the ILMAC has asked JCI concerned to submit the facts and call the concerned persons in the ILMAC meeting on 5.4.2010. In response to this, Joint Commissioner of Industries (HH) has submitted a detailed note regarding the issues related to Leather Complex at Wazirpur and he also mentioned that there is a case lying in the Hon’ble High Court about the regularization of flats of this Leather Complex and the concerned office bearers of the Association/concerned persons having not been called in this meeting and Shri T.P. Singh, DCI (HH) was present in the meeting and submitted that there are many persons are in a possession of many flats. In view of this, the concerned branch may put up the issues after detailed examination in accordance with Land Management Guidelines/any policies/orders of the department in this regard in the next ILMAC meeting.
5. S-37, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Area. The allottee unit M/s Mega Technology Consultant Pvt. Ltd. has applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold. After allotment, there has been changes in shareholding. A list of shareholders submitted by the allottee unit is on file from C-251-252. Shri S.M. Maheshwari, Director of the Company and major shareholder is present before the ILMAC. As per LMG, if there is a change from proprietor ship or partnership to a private limited company or vice-versa, then UEI is leviable. Accordingly, while applying for free hold there is any
change, sur-charge is levyable. Whereas in this instant case there is a change of shareholders and Land Management Guidelines is silent about this issue, therefore, the Committee is of considered view to seek the opinion from Law Department whether sur-charge is levyable or not for change of shareholders outside the family.
6. The case of M/s Vinod Plastic relocation application No.14048 was taken up by the Committee as per the directions of the Commissioner of Industries. Accordingly, Shri Tarun Tiwan, Advocate along with Smt. Nirmal Bansal, proprietor of the firm appeared before ILMAC and made their oral submission that this unit was in operation prior to 19.4.1996. Further, they have shown some of the documents like Electricity Bill, rent receipt, FIR Copy for the misuse of electricity etc. It is, therefore, the relocation branch shall examine the issue in detail, taking into considerations of the Hon’ble High Court and also direction of Commissioner of Industries and put up the case before ILMAC for appropriate recommendation in the next ILMAC meeting on 12.4.2010. It is also important to mention here that the Hon’ble High Court has given the time period of 15 days for disposing off the case. Since this matter came up in the ILMAC today and it may take some more time for the detailed examination, for that the proprietor have given a consent for further examination of the case.
7. The matter of Plot No.1236, Narela Industrial Complex was placed before ILMAC. The present applicant Shri Beer Bhan Aggarwal has applied for change of constitution in his favour. He has also filed a writ petition No.11848/2009 in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. ILMAC recommend that transfer charges/change of constitution charges may be calculated by the branch concerned in accordance with the provisions of Land Management Guidelines
i.e. the charges have to be applied for every sale transaction as per the rates prevalent on the date of transaction as notified vide circular dated 11.11.2009. Further, regularization charges till the date of intimation have to be levied as per the provisions of the Land Management Guidelines. The branch is also advised to defend the court case properly.
8. The case of plot No.1604, Narela Industrial Complex was placed before ILMAC by Narela Allotment Cell regarding mutation after the death of the allottee Shri Mukesh Kumar on 27.6.2004. Smt. Anju Bansal, the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. The wife of the deceased Smt. Anju Bansal has applied for mutation in her favour and has submitted an affidavit and relinquishment deed, duly registered, with sub-registrar office. As per accounts functionaries of Narela Division, there is no outstanding dues against the plot. The ILMAC is of the considered view that mutation may be allowed without UEI as per Land Management Guidelines.
9. 531 FIE Patparganj. The case of plot No.531, FIE Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the ILMAC as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Naresh Kumar Verma, the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. The date of construction as per form D is within the last extension granted up to 30.4.2001. There was subletting reported, for which subletting charges with interest has been paid by the applicant. The applicant is a subsequent purchaser and chain of GPA and agreement to sell is complete. There no nothing adverse reported by the Estate Manager. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar Verma subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as
per guidelines.
10. The matter of plot no. 1343 Narela Industrial Complex was placed before the ILMAC. The lessee firm M/s Capital Surgical Industries has given a representation through its partner Shri Rajeev Jindal that they have not been given physical possession of the plot by the DSIIDC, in spite of execution of lease deed on 22/6/2009, as the plot no. 1343 allotted to him is already occupied and there is a structure existing on it. A report was called by the Narela Allotment Branch of the Corporation from the Works Division, i.e. Executive Engineer in-charge of Narela Industrial Estate, who has reported that Factory Building has already been constructed on plot no. 1343 by the allottee of plot no. 1342 which was constructed long back. EE has further stated that no other record is available with respect to plot no. 1343 in works division. In a further clarification dated 16/12/09 sent by SE (Narela), DSIIDC has stated that plot no. 1342 is still vacant and apparently it is a case of construction of building at plot no. 1343 by mistake.
The matter was examined by the Narela Allotment Branch and both the lessees, that is lessees of plot no. 1342 and 1343 were called by the General Manager, NAC, DSIIDC. The allottee of plot no. 1342 has stated that he has constructed his factory building at plot no. 1343 instead of 1342 due to wrong demarcation given to him. The allottee of plot no. 1343 has stated that he consents to accept plot no. 1342 in order to resolve the problem, if DSIIDC agrees to interchange the numbers of plot nos 1342 and 1343 in its records, in the lease, and in the records of concerned departments like MCD.
The ILMAC has deliberated upon the matter and is of the considered view that given the facts and circumstances of the case
and the willingness of the parties to settle it amicably, the best course would be to regularize the change by interchanging the allotment numbers of the two plots. The appropriate rectification of lease deeds may be executed in this regard so as to avoid any ambiguity in future. Indemnity Bonds may also be obtained from both the parties to safeguard the Corporation’s interests.
11. The matter of plot no. 1121, Narela Industrial Complex was taken up by ILMAC, as presented by the branch concerned. In this case, the applicant executed the lease deed in 2007, but did not take up the construction of factory. The applicant applied in 2009 under amnesty scheme for extension of time/NOC for construction of factory. However, the applicant has now stated that she is a citizen of USA. The matter has been referred by the branch to ILMAC for seeking advice on whether foreign citizens can own and operate industrial units in the industrial estates of GNCTD/DSIIDC.
ILMAC advised that in the first instance the lessee concerned may be given an opportunity to present full facts through their local representatives, and further course of action can then be decided by the branch in accordance with law and the approval of competent authority.
1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 12.04.2010 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 12.04.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman2. Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC3. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member 4. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member5. Sh. A.K. SAxena, DCI – Member Convener6. Sh. Sanjay, A.A.O. – represented F.O. MemberThe cases discussed were as under:-
1. 228, Okhla Industrial Estate: In this case Shri Sameer Arora, the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. This plot was allotted to M/s Industrial Foams Pvt. Ltd. with share holding of Shri Devi Chand Arora and his son Shri T.R. Arora. Shri Devi Chand Arora expired on 17 Jan., 1982 (death certificate on record at C-234). Subsequent to his death, his share was transferred to Shri T.R. Arora & Sons (HUF) having two members i.e. Shri T.R. Arora & Shri Sameer Arora, the son and grand son of the deceased respectively. Subsequently, the HUF has transferred the shares in the name of Shri Sameer Arora son of Shri T.R. Arora. Since the changes are within the family, therefore, the ILMAC observed that the change in share holding of the company may be taken on record without levy of any UEI/surcharge. Accordingly, conversion is recommended with 40% rebate.
2. Shed No.9, Okhla Industrial Estate. Shri Kamal Kumar, partner of the firm appeared before the ILMAC. The plot was allotted to M/s Allied Agencies. The change in constitution in favour of Shri Kamal Kumar and his wife Smt. Renu Kumar has been approved by the department/competent authority which is on record
at N/106 and a letter to this effect has been issued on 8.4.2010. Shri Kamal Kumar and Smt. Renu Kumar, partners of the firm have applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold. The ILMAC is of the considered view to recommend to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the said firm consisting both the members as mentioned above subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
3. The case of plot No.S-55, Badli Industrial Estate regarding restoration of determined lease and settlement of the case was considered by the ILMAC. Shri S.R. Gupta, Proprietor of the firm appeared before the ILMAC. The main contention is that the demand of UEI for the rates of first transaction as well as second transaction is not correct; secondly the restoration charges are not applicable in this case. Besides, he has filed a conversion application, from lease hold to free hold, in the year 2005-06, which was returned to him without accepting his request for adjusting transfer charges in the conversion charges and due to the pendency of court case regarding unpaid restoration charges. It is submitted by the concerned branch that the unearned increase charges was calculated on two transactions as per the prevailing rates of the dates of the said transaction with regularization charges, as applicable till the date of filing his intimation. Further, the amount of restoration charges was Rs.4,46,430/- has remained unpaid and, therefore, the interest components has also been added into the same. It was also mentioned that the applicant’s application for conversion was returned in September, 2006 because demand draft for conversion charges was not enclosed with the application. It was also observed by the Committee that the applicant will be allowed 40% rebate on the conversion charges as per guidelines, but he will have to deposit the conversion charges as per the prevalent rates of the year 2010-2011. The ILMAC further recommends to the concerned branch to re-
examine the matter with regard to the dispute of transfer charges and restoration charges, if any, and raise appropriate demand to the applicant along with the facts of misuse/non permissible activity.
4. The case of Plot No. 30, FIE Patparganj was considered as per the recommendation of the concerned branch with regard to levy of unearned increase charges and the interest thereon. Shri Ashok Rastogi, on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the Committee. It was informed to the Committee that the original allottee Smt. Neebha Hussain had applied for change in constitution on 6.11.1990 from proprietorship to private limited company, which was allowed vide letter dated 18.9.1991 subject to payment of 50% UEI charges of the market value. A reminder was sent on 6.2.1992 and a final demand was raised on 8.9.1993 for UEI charges amounting to Rs.5,40,000/- which has remained unpaid till date. It was also observed that the original allottee had given an undertaking to the department to pay the said UEI charges at the time of approval of change in constitution. The present applicant is a subsequent purchaser who has purchased the said plot from the private limited company, which was also sold by the original allottee by induction of new Directors and retiring herself. The present applicant has also filed conversion application with surcharge on 24.1.2006. The applicant’s contention is that since he was not aware of any demand, which was sent to the original allottee, he may not be asked to pay the interest as he is now ready to pay the UEI charges of Rs.5,40,000/-. The applicant has also gone to Civil Court against this demand. The Committee is of the view that since the demand was raised in the year 1993, the interest component has been calculated as per the policy of the department, as such the request of the applicant cannot be acceded to.
5. The case of Plot No. 423, FIE Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered as per the
recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Suresh, representative of the applicant appeared before the Committee. The construction of the building is within the last extension granted as per form `D’. Estate Manager has confirmed the manufacturing activity and nothing adverse has been reported. The ILMAC accordingly, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of pending dues, if any, as per guidelines.
6. The case of Plot No. 18, Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, Proprietor of the firm is appeared before the ILMAC. The applicants are subsequent purchaser through a chain of GPA and Agreement to Sell which are prior to 2001. As such, all the GPAs are found to be registered whereas Agreement to Sells are unregistered. The construction of the building is within the last extension granted as per form `D’. Estate Manager has confirmed the manufacturing activity and nothing adverse has been reported. Further, there were two issues pending regarding subletting permission asked by the one of the purchaser in the chain of subsequent purchasers in which the change in constitution was approved in his favour at a subsequent date. The Committee refers to the recent clarification in this regard and observed that the subletting for the reported period up to the allowing of change in constitution may be obtained from the applicant and in case demand has been raised, 18% simple interest may also be charged. The other issue was regarding observations of Estate Manager that applicant is carrying out prohibited activities of backelite power as per MPD 2021. In this connection the applicant has furnished a consent issued by the DPCC in the year 2003 which has expired and the applicant has applied for renewal thereof. The applicant has also given a copy of reply received from DPCC under RTI ID No.734 dated 16.2.2010 which confirms that the
manufacturing of Bakalite Power using Phenal Formaldehyde Resin as starting Raw Material The ILMAC accordingly, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicant subject to payment of pending dues, if any, as per guidelines and an attested copy of RTI application along with an undertaking that they are manufacturing Bakalite Power using Phenal Formaldehyde Resin as starting Raw material which is permissible activity in Badli Industrial Estate.tem with the said raw material and the RTI application given by them is true and correct..
7. Plot No.318, Narela Industrial Complex. Shri Brij Lal Aggrawal, the applicant has appeared before the Committee. The applicant is a second purchaser and applied for execution of Conveyance Deed for free hold without entering into lease deed. One Shri Devender Kumar Bhola, s/o late Shri Gur Charan Jeet Gingh has made a representation to the DSIIDC that the request of Shri Brij Lal Aggarwal should not be considered as his father Shri Gur Charan Jeet Gingh never sold the plot in question. He stated that his father only signed a SPA in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta and that Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta was only the attorney holder and that after the death of his father on 1.7.1997., the SPA executed stands cancelled due to expiry.The matter has been considered by the ILMAC, the applicant Shri Brij Lal Aggarwal states that he purchased the plot from Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta on the strength of registered GPA and Agreement to Sell on 29.6.1998. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta acquired the property from the original allottee Shri Gur Charan Jeet Gingh vide registered Agreement to Sell and power of Attorney, GPA & SPA on 22.3.1996. The present applicant Shri Brij Lal Aggarwal is in possession of all the relevant legal documents executed between the original allottee and first purchaser and second purchaser whereas the second purchaser
is Shri Brij Lal Aggarwal himself. He has also in possession of the original allotment letter etc. issued by the DSIIDC to the original allottee. He further says that he has already constructed the factory building on the said premises and the factory has already running work and the work steel wire drawing is being carried out. The ILMAC while taking note of the possession and the documents available with the applicant, is of the view that the complainant Shri Devender Kumar Bhola may be given one opportunity to present his stand before the Committee by calling him within two weeks along with original documents that may be in his possession.
8. The case of Plot No.480, FIE Patparganj Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri M.K. Aggarwal, representative of the applicant is appeared before the Committee. The applicants are subsequent purchasers through GPA and agreement to sell. The last agreement to sell and power of attorney was in favour of three persons namely shri Tilak Raj Kapoor, Shri Sanjay Kapoor and Shri Sunil Kapoor. One of the above co-sharers Shri Tilak Raj Kapoor has expired and has left behind an unregistered `WILL’ in favour of his two sons, the other two co-parceners. The other legal heirs of the deceased have also relinquished their shares in favour of the remaining two partners through registered deed, indemnity bond etc. The applicant has paid subletting charges and composition charges as applicable in this case. Nothing adverse has been reported as per the report of Estate Manager. ILMAC, therefore, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicants namely Shri Sanjay Kapoor and Shri Sunil Kapoor both sons of Shri Tilak Raj Kapoor subject to payment of pending dues, if any, as per guidelines.
9. S-43, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II. M/s Sarvonics India Pvt. Ltd. has applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold. A deficiency letter was issued vide this office letter dated 28.7.2009. Shri Dinesh Chaudhary and Sh. Piyush Chaudhary, both Directors of the Company appeared before the Committee. As regards submission of Conveyance Deed from shri B.K. Ahluwalia in favour of the Company, a legal opinion has been obtained in similar case from Law Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in case of B-2, Badli Industrial Estate and they have opined that at this belated stage it should not be insisted to execute conveyance deed.As regards 50% Unearned Increase against the demand towards UEI has been raised vide this office letter dated 12.1.2009 intimating the applicant that they have to pay UEI charges of Rs.4,51,508/- and regularization charges to the tune of Rs.2,70,905/-. Since the amounts have not been paid, 18% simple interest is chargeable on the balance payment of the demand letter dated 12.1.2002009.The applicant has required to submit the list of present shareholders of the Company from the date of change in constitution allowed by the department. The applicant has already submitted resolution in favour of Mrs. Achla Chaudhary, one of the Director of the Company.The construction of building was completed on 7.10.1992 as per D form, whereas the lease was executed on 24.1.1985 i.e. construction is beyond 7 years and for which composition charges for delayed construction is levyable. The ILMAC is of considered view that once these formalities are completed, the branch should process the matter of conversion from lease hold to free hold as per Land Management Guidelines.
10. 10. 91, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate. The case of plot No.91, Phase-I Badli Industrial State was considered for conversion from lease hold to free hold as per the recommendation of
the concerned branch. The applicant is a subsequent purchase by way of Registered GPA and Aggrement to Sell (unregistered) dated 10.1.1986. The construction of the building is within the last extension granted as per form `D’. Estate Manager has confirmed the manufacturing activity and nothing adverse has been reported. The ILMAC accordingly, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in respect of plot No. 91, Phase-I Badli Industrial State subject to payment of pending dues, if any, as per guidelines.
11. B-2, Badli Industrial Estate. The case of plot No.B-2, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate was considered by the ILMAC as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri Vijay Bhatia, Partner of the firm appeared before the ILMAC. In continuation of its earlier minutes of ILMAC dated 1.2.2010 regarding the requirement of executing conveyance deed with respect change in partners surcharge has been paid. The branch concerned has produced opinion of Law Department in this regard which states that in such cases, the execution of conveyance deed may not be insisted upon. ILMAC, therefore, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of pending dues, if any, as per guidelines.
12. Shed No.92, Okhla Industrial Estate. The matter was last discussed in the ILMAC meeting held on 25.1.2010 when it was observed that the allottee should be called before the Committee considering the subletting charges amounting to Rs.5,98,086/- and compound interest amounting to Rs.23,39,308/- which appears to be on higher side. The case came up for hearing today when the representative of the Corporation was also present. It was observed that the rate of interest has since been clarified to be @ 18% simple interest in place of 18% compound interest, and accordingly 18% simple interest should be applicable for this public sector corporation. The ILMAC accordingly recommends the
concerned branch to re-calculate the demand of interest and raise the demand for the same from the Corporation accordingly.
13. The matter of plot No.G982, Narela Industrial Complex was placed before the ILMAC. Applicant Shri Kanti Bhai Bamani is present before the ILMAC for transfer of plot in his favour and permission for execution of lease deed. The facts have been gone through as presented by the branch. In this case the allotment of the plot was made to M/s Seema Engineering Works in 1990. The allottee sold the plot in 1996 to Smt. Neena Aggarwal, who subsequently sold the plot to the present occupants/applicants Shri Kanti Bhai Bamani in 1997. The necessary documents for both the transactions i.e. registered GPA, registered WILL and agreement to sell are available on record. Both the applicants submitted an intimation of the purchase in the year 2001 but the same was not accompanied by any documentary evidence and the request for change in constitution. A formal request for the change in constitution along with requisite documents has been submitted by the applicants in March, 2010. In view of the above facts, ILMAC is of the view that the branch may allow change in constitution by charging the prevalent UEI charges for the sale transaction of 1996 & 1997 along with regularization charges there on as per Land Management Guidelines up to 19.3.2010 i.e. the date of intimation subject to deposition of the above UEI charges and any other dues payable by the applicant, ILMAC recommends to allow the transfer of the plot in the name of the applicant and execution of lease deed. The applicant has already deposited Rs.3,18,500/- towards penalty for non execution of lease deed on 9.3.2010.
14. The matter of Plot No.354, Narela Industrial Complex was taken up by ILMAC. Shri Sanjeev Dhawan, the applicant appeared before the Committee with regard to his request for execution of lease deed in his favour. The facts of the case have
been considered as presented by the branch. In this case, the plot was allotted in 1990 to Shri Naresh Babu from whom the present applicant Shri Sanjeev Dhawan purchased the plot on 21.9.1993 on GPA and Agreement to Sell etc. Subsequently, he has constructed the factory building also in 1994. In 2002, he applied for transfer of plot in his name and deposited the requisite transfer charges with the department. The MD/CI approved the transfer on 23.6.2004 at page N-17 on file. However, it appears that there was lack of clarity on file subsequently and transfer was not properly conveyed and regularized. The applicant has deposited the requisite composition charges also for delay in execution of lease deed as per the requirement of Amnesty Scheme on 22.2.2010. In view of the above facts, the ILMAC recommends the change of constitution in favour of the applicant Shri Sanjeev Dhawan and execution of lease deed in his favour subject to payment of pending dues, if any, as per guidelines.
15. Case of M/s Vinod Plastics, Application No.14048 :-the case was earlier taken up by the Committee on 5/4/10as per the directions of the Commissioner of Industries when it was directed to the Branch to examine the issue in detail taking into consideration the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and documents submitted by the applicant and put up the case again before Committee for appropriate recommendations on 12/4/10. Accordingly the Branch has submitted the matter before this Committee.
Brief facts of the case are stated to be that the applicant M/s Vinod Plastics had applied for allotment of industrial plot under Relocation Scheme vide Application No.14048 from the premises at Khasra No.48/9, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi-39. After scrutiny of the application, applicant was asked to submit the relevant documents to
establish the manufacturing activities prior to 19-4-1996 at the applied premises. The applicant has however failed to furnish any documentary evidence to establish its existence prior to 19-4-96. Accordingly, the applicant’s case was rejected on the grounds that petitioner is not eligible for allotment of industrial plot under Relocation Scheme as he has not submitted any supporting documents to establish manufacturing activity prior to 19-4-96. The rejection was conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 24/8/2000. Subsequently, the appeal of the applicant was placed before the then Appeal Committee which had asked the applicant to appear before it alongwith requisite documents. It is found from the record that the said letter was sent through Speed Post but was returned back undelivered. It is further observed that the Address on the envelope was exactly the same as has been provided by the applicant at the time of submitting his application. Subsequently, applicant’s case was closed and the DSIIDC had made refund for the earnest money deposited by the applicant through Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited, 31, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi vide cheque No.490930 dated 14/2/2002 DSIIDC informed the applicant about the refund of his earnest money vide their letter No.DSIIDC/RL/14048/2000 dated 25/2/2002.
Aggrieved by the rejection of his Appeal the applicant has filed civil writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court bearing No.907/2007 at much belated stage. However, the Hon’ble Court has passed the following directions :
“It is an admitted position that these documents were not earlier produced by the Petitioner despite the opportunities given to the Petitioner,. They have been produced now for the first time. Be that as it may, without expressing any view on the veracity of these
documents and whether they constitute sufficient proof in terms of the eligibility criteria this Court t directs the Commissioner of Industries to offer one more opportunity to the Petitioner and consider the aforementioned documents and any other documents which he wishes to produce to show that he was running an industrial unit in a non-confirming area prior to 19-4-1996.
The Petitioner will appear before the Commissioner of Industries on 26th March, 2010 at 11 a.m. The Commissioner, will after considering the documents produced by the Petitioner, pass an order within 15 days thereafter. The said order shall be communicated to the Petitioner within one week thereafter.
No further directions are called for in this petition. The petition is disposed of as such.”
In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Court the applicant had appeared before the Commissioner of Industries on 26/3/10 who heard him. After hearing the facts, the Commissioner of Industries directed that the matter may be examined by the ILMAC/Appeal Committee on 29/3/10, however, on the written submission of the applicant the date was fixed for 5/4/10 hence the present proceedings before this Committee.
The Relocation Branch has informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted a representation dated 19/3/10 in furtherance of the directions of Hon’ble High Court whereby he has produced the documents in support of his claim as enumerated therein. On 5/4/10 as well as on 12/4/10, the applicant Mrs.Nirmala Bansal alongwith her Counsel Sh.Tarun Diwan had appeared before the Committee. The contention of the applicant was heard in detail
alongwith the written submission and the photocopies of the relevant documents given by her, which are summarized below:-
1. That the applicant , Smt.Nirmal Bansal was carrying out the business in the name and style of M/s Vinod Plastics w.e.f. 1-7-95 at Kasara No.48/9, Village- Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi-110039 on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- per month from Sh.Bhagwan Singh. It is further mentioned by the applicant that the said property was jointly owned by Sh.Bhagwan Singh, Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Sh.Dharmpal Singh, Sh.Satprakash Singh and Sh.Joginder Singh, as per the copies of rent receipt which was attached to the representation as Annexure R-1 and R-2.
2. The relevant documents submitted by the applicant to establish that she is carrying on industry in non-confirming area since 1-7-95 which are as under:-
(i) Purchase of bill a cylinder of CO2 fire extinguisher and a foam fire extinguisher from M/s D. S. Fire Protection Works vide bill No.2073 dated 16/5/1996 for Rs.3400/-. A copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure R-4.
(ii) Copies of electricity bills in this respect are annexed as Annexure R-5 to R-12 - showing levy of misuse charges on account of overloading by DESU.
(ii) Acknowledgment slip for registration-cum demand note dated 29-01-1996 for applying connection for the said premises in name of her husband Shri Vinod Bansal and telephone bill in respect of the same as Annexure R-13 to R-21
(iii) Application through Sh.Satprakash, who is the registered user of K.No.1202475, for enhancement of load and payments of cheques of Rs.44,988.00 vide Receipt No.88469 dated 18/01/1996, which was duly acknowledged by distribution branch of DESU(then Electricity Authority) vide letter dated
19/01/96. Copies of the said receipt dated 18/1/96 and letter dated 19/1/96 are annexed herewith as Annexure R-22 to 23.
(iv) Copies of the Inspection Report from DESU dated 22/3/97 and FIR No.55/99 annexed as Annexure R-24 to R-25.
(v)Copies of the notice for disconnection dated 27/9/97 and bill paid in respect of same annexed as Annexure R-26
(vi) A copy of Electricity Provisional Theft Bill with due date of 25/6/1999 is annexed as Annexure R-27.
(vii) A receipt for re-inspection of premises by DESU bearing No.154834 dated 3/4/1997 as Annexure R-28 and copy of re-inspection report as Annexure R-29.
(viii) Copy of the order dated 17/05/2004 by Hon’ble Court quashing FIR as Annexure R-30.
(ix) Income Tax acknowledgement of return form No.2 for previous year 1995-96 to 1997-98 as Annexure R-31 to R-33 for perusal of your goodself.
The applicant has based his contention mainly on following two aspects:-1. That Power Bills mentions misuse charges.2. The linkage between the applicant and the owner/holder of
the electricity connection has been established as being of tenant and landlord on the basis of rent receipt.
The Committee has given its careful consideration to the above aspects and observed that, the applicant could not furnish any document to establish manufacturing activities prior to 1994-96. It is further observed by the Committee that as per the guidelines the applicant is required to produce any of the following documents to establish existence of his manufacturing activities prior to 19.04.96.
Documents Whether furnished
a) Municipal Corporation License (Renewed upto 31.3.1995)
No
b) Permanent SSI Registration Noc) Sales Tax Registration of
manufacturingNo
d) Excise Registration for manufacturing Noe) Registration under Factories Act Nof) Drug License, if unit is manufacturing
item covered under Drug ActNo
g) Test Report from BIS, RTC, QMS certificate issued by the office of C.I etc.
No
h) Manufacturers Certificate in case of household electrical appliances
No
i) BIS License Noj) Registration with EPC as Manufacturer
ExporterNo
k) Copy of the challan issued by the DDA or MCD or DVB within last 5 years for running industry
No
l)* Power Bill showing misuse charges for running an industry in non-conforming area
Power Bill submitted, but it
does not show that misuse was for
running the inddustry
m)**
Income Tax Return of the industry Yes, but of later date.
n)** Receipt showing that unit has applied for permission to High Power Committee
No
*In case the Power Bill is not in the name of the applicant unit, proper linkages will have to be established between the person/unit in whose name the power has been sanctioned/ installed and the applicant unit.
**Documents mentioned at `m’ & `n’ will have to be supported by any of the other documents listed above.
After carefully going through the contention of the applicant, and the documents produced by him and the guidelines for relocation of the industries, ILMAC is of the view that the applicant has failed to establish that he was carrying out manufacturing activities or that her manufacturing unit was in existence prior to 19-4-1996 for the following reasons:-
(a) The Power Bills does not show that misuse charges are levied for running industrial unit in a non-confirming area because the Power Bills though are prior to 19-4-96 the Inspection Report of erstwhile DESU and DVB and other relevant documents given in this regard as mentioned above, are all for the period after the cutoff date i.e. 19-4-96.(b) The applicant had tried to show linkage between the connection holder and the applicant as owner of the premises where as the applicant has stated that he had taken on rent the premises from one Sh.Bhagwan Singh whereas the connection is in the name of Sh.Satprakash Singh and the rent receipt shown to have been issued by Sh.Satprakash Singh. Although applicant has stated that premises are the joint property of Sh.Bhagwan Singh, Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Sh.Dharmpal Singh, Sh.Satprakash Singh and Sh.Joginder Singh, he has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect except that their names are mentioned on the rent receipt. Even if the contention of the applicant is presumed to be true, the applicant is required to produce the Power Bill clarifying that the Power Bill for
the period prior to 19-4-96 carries misuse charges for industrial activity carried out by applicant and not for any other commercial activity, as per the guidelines.C. The applicant has also furnished a copy of Income Tax Return/ Acknowledgement for the assessment year 1996-97 and 1998-99 but it is observed that the same are for the period 1996-97 after the cutoff date 19-4-96. Acknowledgement / Return for assessment year 1996-97 has also been filed on 30/12/96 which is also after the cutoff date of 19-4-96.
Accordingly, the ILMAC recommends that the applicant is not eligible for allotment of Industrial Plot under Relocation Scheme and the concerned branch is advised to seek approval of the competent authority before informing the applicant to ensure compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Court within stipulated time.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.(A.K. Saxena)
Copy to:1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)
Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/ Dated
Addendum to the Minutes of the meeting of ILMAC held on 12.4.2010
The case of plot No.269, FIE, Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee on the recommendations of the concerned branch. The applicant is an original allottee namely Shri Bemba Singh who is also present in the meeting. The applicant is manufacturing readymade garments and handloom items as per the report of the Estate Manager and nothing adverse has been reported. The applicant has paid composition charges for belated construction as per the House Tax Assessment report. The ILMAC accordingly recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/ Dated
1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman2. Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC3. Sh. A.K. Saxena, DCI – Member Convener
Copy to:1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 26.04.2010 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 26.04.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. Sh. A.R. Talwade, JCI – Chairman
2. Sh. Vishva Mohan, GM, DSIIDC3. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, DCI - Member 4. Sh. S.K. Singh, DCI – Member5. Sh. A.K. SAxena, DCI – Member Convener6. Sh. M.K. Sharma, F.O. Member
The cases discussed were as under:-
1. The case of plot No. 220, Okhla Industrial Estate M/s Span India Ltd. for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee on the recommendations of the concerned branch. In this case, the allottee M/s M.C. Engineering Co. was allowed to transfer the ownership rights to the present applicant M/s Span India Limited by the Lessor in the year 2002. The applicant has applied for conversion and sought rebate of 40% as an original allottee because they have already paid unearned increase charges at the time of transfer. However, it was observed by the branch that the applicant’s status was changed from limited to private limited company in the year 1999. The applicant has contended that the same was only due to the provisions of section 43 A(4) of the Companies Act, which provided that due to increase or decrease of the turnover the status of the company will be deemed to be changed from limited to private limited and vice-versa. The applicant, has also given a copy of clarification in the form of circular dated 25.5.1999 issued by Department of Company Affairs, Ministry of Law Justice & Company Affairs with regard to the deemed Public Companies consequent upon the increase in the ceiling of fresh annual turnover criteria from Rs.10 crore to Rs. 25 crore. Further a fresh certificate of incorporation has been issued by the Registrar of Companies on 6th july, 1999 which is available at page C-234 of the file regarding change of name/status from Span India Limited to Span India Pvt. Ltd. under section 43A(4) of the Companies Act. After considering the arguments, ILMAC is of the considered view that applicant may be asked to furnish an undertaking
that they have not issued any public shares at the time of their status as Limited Company till the date of re-conversion to private limited company or have parted with their shares during this period and case be submitted before ILMAC, after doing the needful, in next meeting. 2. The case of 349, FIE Patparganj, M/s Heat Exchange Pvt. Ltd.. for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the ILMAC in continuation of its earlier recommendations made in the meeting held on 15.3.2010. Shri Ajit singh, Shri Harmeet Singh & Mrs Jasbir Caur, all Directors of the firm appeared before the ILMAC. Accordingly, the concerned branch has examined the issue in detail and observed that the dispute between tenant and land lord had already been adjudicated before the hon’ble High Court and as per the orders of the hon’ble court, the tenant had already deposited the balance decree amount towards rent and other incidental charges. From the reading of judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in OMP 303/2009 dated 15.9.2009 given by the Hon’ble Justice Shri Shiv Narain Dhingra it is observed that the Hon’ble courthas rejected the claim of the tenant in details. In para-7 of the said judgement, it has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Court with regard to one of the objection of the tenant regarding unauthorized sub-tenancy given to him by the allottee, which is reproduced below:-“The other ground for challenging the award is that the lessor (respondent) in this case had taken the premises from Commissioner of Industries on lease and one of the conditions of the lease was that the premises could not be further sublet. This plea was considered by the learned arbitrator and was rightly rejected. The lease between the lessor and the superior lessor was not the subject matter of dispute before the arbitrator nor could the petitioner raise this issue. The superior lessor is free to take action against the lessor (respondent herein) for violation of the terms of the lease. It is none of the business of the petitioner, that too after enjoying the lease premises, to raise
this issue. The petitioner was aggrieved on this count, he could have vacated the premises as and when the petitioner came to know about it. The petitioner could not have continued to occupy the premises and simultaneously take a ground that he was wrongly inducted as a sub-tenant.”
As could be seen from the said clarification, it was for the Lessor to take action for subletting without his prior permission, which have already been taken in this case. As informed to the ILMAC by the concerned branch, the department has realized an amount of subletting charges from the tenant amounting to Rs.12,46,342/- with interest amounting to Rs.12,85,369/- as per the Land Management Guidelines. Further a Show-Cause-Notice was also issued to the applicant on 10.8.2009 for the said violation which was duly replied by the allottee vide letter dated 9.9.2009 and simultaneously, the allottee has also filed an application for conversion from lease hold to free hold under the scheme floated by the industry department. Accordingly, the branch has taken action on the said application. The tenant/aggrieved person Shri V.K. Dhawan for Ajit Mittal Corportion was given due opportunity to represent himself and was heard at length by the concerned branch as well as ILMAC. It has been observed that the objector now has no locus standi in the matter as the contract of the tenancy has also been terminated and premises have been vacated by him. As per the recommendations of the ILMAC on 15.3.2010, the premises were again inspected by the Estate Manager on 22.3.2010 and as per his report placed at page C/399 of concerned file, it has been stated the the applicant is doing job work and services of heat exchange and vessels and nothing adverse has been noticed by him. Further the applicant has constructed the building as per occupancy certificate dated 16.1.2003 and has deposited an amount of Rs.1,39,500/- towards composition charges
as per order dated 5.10.2009, besides subletting charges with interest as mentioned above. Considering the above facts, the concerned branch has recommended the conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the allottee finding that nothing survives in the complaint of the objector and the guidelines for conversion also does not provide any ground for withholding conversion application on account of an objection from a person have no locus standi. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
3. The case of 57, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate was taken up by the ILMAC in which Shri Hari Saran, GPA holder was present. The matter of subletting and transfer of land from one hand to other was discussed in detail and further the present GPA holder has applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold in the year 2006. He has paid 33 ½ % surcharge, being the subsequent purchaser and being the third in the chain. He states that he purchased the plot from M/s Modern Plastic in Jan., 2002 who had purchased the plot in 1986 and subletting permission was also granted in favour of M/s Modern Plastic for the period of three years from 1987 to 1989 for the constructed area of the plot i.e. 507 Sq.ft. After 1989 M/s Modern Plastic neither applied for extension and nor any extension was therefore, granted by the department. The department also did not take up any proceedings regarding the subletting charges at that time. It is only in 2002 that the department issued a show cause notice for illegal sale purchase, which he had replied at that time, however, the show cause notice did not raise any objection regarding subletting. He further states that according to him subletting charted are not applicable to M/s Modern Plastics because they were not tenants but they were purchasers of the plot who purchased the plot through registered GPA and agreement to
sale etc. He further states that since the original subletting application and permission was for the constructed area of 507 Sq.ft., the same at best can be charged from 1989 to 2002 and not the plot area as per the policy of the department. He further states that he took up the further construction of the plot in 2003 and before that the total constructed area remain the same from 1986 onwards i.e. 507 Sq.ft.. It was decided that the branch will examine the contentions raised by the applicant and submit its views to ILMAC for consideration in the next meeting.
4. The proposal regarding clarification of conversion policy was placed before ILMAC by Shri H.L. Malik, Advisor, DITE. In this regard some of the issues regarding the clarification have been discussed and it is felt that a detailed examination of the issues is required. It is, therefore, a sub-committee consisting of following members may be constituted for examining the issues:-
The above sub-committee will examine the issue and place before the ILMAC in the meeting to be held on 24 May, 2010 positively.
5. The case of plot No.405, FIE, Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee on the recommendations of the concerned branch. It was informed to the Committee that the applicants are subsequent purchaser through a chain of GPA and agreement to Sell. Upon death of the last GPA holder, her wife has been authorized through registered WILL as well as Relinquishment Deed from other legal heirs. Beside the Agreement to Sell holder, who is the brother of the deceased, has also executed a registered Agreement to Sell of ½ undivided share of
plot and constructed building through registered agreement to sale in favour of Smt. Gurbachan Kaur Nayyar. The plot is reported to be constructed as per form B and occupancy certificate, which is prior to the date of last extension granted for this purpose. The Estate Manager has reported a subletting of the premises w.e.f. 1.4.2008 which is after the date of filing application for conversion i.e. 31.3.2006 as such does not invite any subletting charges. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Smt. Gurbachan Kaur Nayyar and Sh. Arvind Singh Nayyar, subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
6. The case of M/s Janta Service Station relocation application No.57064 for allotment of industrial plot under relocation scheme was considered by ILMAC in continuation of the earlier recommendations as contained in the minutes dated 12.10.2009 and recommendations of the then Appeal Committee dated 10.11.2009. Present Shri Gurcharan Singh, the applicant. The brief facts of the case are that the case was rejected on the grounds of running a Service Station which was not to be relocated and the earnest money was also refunded by DSIIDC in 2002. The applicant had moved Hon’ble High Court in writ petition No.3562/2008 against the rejection on the grounds that in terms of the letter dated 27.11.2006 issued by the Commissioner of Industries to MD, DSIIDC, the service station/workshop, being a service sector industry, is eligible for allotment of alternative industrial plot. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.9.2009 had directed the department of Industries to re-consider the case of the applicant in the light of the letter dated 27.11.2006 and other documents and material relied upon by the petitioner and communicate the decision in writing to him within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, his case
was placed before the then Appeal Committee on the recommendations of ILMAC and as per the minutes the Appeal Committee has recommended that the relocation branch may get the verification of income tax certificate issued by the Income Tax Department vide letter No F.No.ITO/W-35/2006-07/335 dated 21.12.2006 by sending its photocopy to Income Tax Department vide registered A.D. and re-submit the file after receipt of confirmation. The concerned branch has informed to ILMAC/Appeal Committee that the Income Tax Department has forwarded the letter/report of confirmation of their letter dated 21.12.2006 vide letter No.F.No. ITO/Ward-35(3)/2009-10/118 dated 23.3.2010. The Committee further observed that as per criteria for establishing the date of establishment of manufacturing unit prior to 19.4.1996, the following documents may be considered as appropriate:-
Documents Whether furnisheda) Municipal Corporation License
(Renewed upto 31.3.1995)Yes but in the
name of M/s Janta Yarn Twisting,
Prop. Sh. Gurcharan Singh
b) Permanent SSI Registration Noc) Sales Tax Registration of
manufacturingNo
d) Excise Registration for manufacturing Noe) Registration under Factories Act Nof) Drug License, if unit is manufacturing
item covered under Drug ActNo
g) Test Report from BIS, RTC, QMS certificate issued by the office of C.I etc.
No
h) Manufacturers Certificate in case of household electrical appliances
No
i) BIS License Noj) Registration with EPC as Manufacturer
ExporterNo
k) Copy of the challan issued by the DDA or MCD or DVB within last 5 years for running industry
No
l)* Power Bill showing misuse charges for running an industry in non-conforming area
Yes but in the name of M/s Janta
Yarn Twisting, Prop. Sh.
Gurcharan Singhm)**
Income Tax Return of the industry Yes
n)** Receipt showing that unit has applied for permission to High Power Committee
No
*In case the Power Bill is not in the name of the applicant unit, proper linkages will have to be established between the person/unit in whose name the power has been sanctioned/ installed and the applicant unit.
**Documents mentioned at `m’ & `n’ will have to be supported by any of the other documents listed above.
Now, considering the verification report received from the Income Tax Department as well as the income tax returns/assessment orders filed by the applicant for the period from 1992-1993 to 1997-1998, it appears that the applicants unit was in existence prior to 19.4.1996 at the applied address i.e. 383/10-V, East Azad Nagar, Delhi. However, as per the above guidelines, the Income tax returns accompanied by some other documents to establish the existence of the unit. In this regard, the applicant has furnished photocopies of MCD Licence in the
name of M/s Janta Yarn Twisting, proprietor Shri Gurcharan Singh at the address 383/10-V, East Azad Nagar, Delhi issued in the year 1979-80 and valid up to 1994-96 as well as a copy of DESU Bill for industrial power in the name of M/s Janta Yarn Twisting, proprietor Sh. Gurcharan Singh at the same address. The applicant has shown the originals of the same to the Committee. He has further contended that he had been functional at the said address since 1987-88 and has changed the trade from Yarn Twitor to Service Station. He further contended that the licence and industrial connection also shows him as a proprietor and name of the firm could not be changed, as being a cumbersome procedure. It was observed from the same as well as the guidelines that MCD licence can be acceipted even if it is not in the name of the applicant but in the name of his relations whereas in the instant case the MCD licence though is in the name of M/s Janta Yarn Twisting but the name of the proprietor is the same as that of applicant. Considering these facts, it was observed that the applicant has enough documentary support with regard to his claim that he had been in existence at the applied premises prior to 19.4.1996 and he had mentioned in his application the industrial activities as Service Station for automobiles. The ground of rejection was also Service Station which is not sustainable at this stage, considering the policy consideration as contained in letter dated 27.11.2006. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow allotment of industrial plot admissible to him under the relocation scheme as per the calculation criteria mentioned by the relocation branch. The relocation branch may take further appropriate action after taking approval of the competent authority and comply with the directions of Hon’ble High Court. 7. The case of plot No.438, FIE, Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee on the recommendations of the concerned branch. The case was already
approved by the then Competent Authority i.e. Commissioner of Industries with the rider that case is approved if the construction is completed within the specified time. Thereafter the case has remained pending due to non finalization of the issue with regard to billeted construction and composition charges. The composition charges were finally issued vide order dated 5.10.2009 with the approval of Hon’ble L.G., which the applicant had paid, as informed by the concerned branch. The ILMAC, therefore, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines and for execution of conveyance deed.
8 The case of plot No.69, FIE, Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee on the recommendations of the concerned branch. Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal, partner of the firm appeared before the Committee. The applicants are original allottee by virtue of change in constitution. The change in constitution was approved by the competent authority at that time. The construction is reported to be completed within the permissible time. Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager and applicant has paid subletting charges as reported on the file. The ILMAC accordingly recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal and Shri Vijay Kumar Bansal subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
9. The case of plot No.190, FIE, Patparganj for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee in continuation of its earlier recommendations as per the minutes of the meeting held on 21.12.2009. Present Shri Vikas Mohan Singhal, Director of the firm. It was informed by the branch concerned that
the subletting charges have been got re-calculated as per the recommendations for the subletted area of 2263 Sq.ft. for the period from 1.1.2001 to 18.7.2006 i.e. till the date of filing of free hold application which comes to Rs.14,936/-. The simple interest is also worked out for the said period @ 18% amounting to Rs.14682/- as per the decision already taken in this regard. Secondly, the Committee was informed by the branch that the case is complete as the construction is reported to be within the last extension granted by the department and Estate Manager has confirmed the manufacturing activities by the applicant. Nothing adverse has been reported. However it was mentioned by the branch that the General Power of Attorneys( GPAs) dated 18.6.1998 and 18.8.1998 was unregistered. The applicant contends that though the GPA dated 18.5.98 was un-registered, the GPA dated 18.8.1998 was duly registered vide registration No.48934, Book No.4 page No.1 to 2, which is not available with him. The applicant had tried to obtain the certified copy from the concerned sub-registrar, but the same is also not available with them. The applicant has given the letter bearing No.FSR4/DC dated 6.9.2007 vide which the sub-registrar (4A) district North East has confirmed that a GPA was registered at the said serial numbers, but the same could not be compared due to non-availability of said record. Accordingly, the Committee finds that, as already decided/legal opinion available, GPA is not a mandatory registrable document and the department may accept the same on submission of registered Indemnity Bond by the applicant with regard to execution/registration of GPA dated 18.5.98 and 18.8.98 indemnifying the department in this regard. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from Lease hold to free hold subject to payment of subletting charges with interest as mentioned above and production of registered indemnity bond by the applicant and other outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
11. Plot No. 98, Badli Industrial Estate Phase-II- The case for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by ILMAC as per the recommendations of the concerned branch. The main issue involved was regarding sub-letting charges payable for the period from 1.6.89 to 7.1.1999 and interest thereon. It was submitted by the branch that the sub-letting charges have been worked out to Rs.15,719/- for the said period and the interest @ 18% simple w.e.f. 20.3.07 to till date will be charged since the demand was raised only on 20.3.07. The other issue is regarding date of construction which the applicant claim in the year 1987 on account of electricity bill and MCD license and other relevant documents like House Tax Assessment report whereas the Form ‘D’ is of subsequent date. It was observed that the date of construction can be decided on the basis of first energisation of electricity or house tax assessment report from the guidelines of conversion. Accordingly, it is observed that the date of energisation as per the electricity bill is 22.5.1987 where as the last extension was granted up to 8.5.1987. Therefore, composition charge at the prevalent rate as per the circular dated 5.10.09 may be charged for the remaining period. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Shri K.K. Arora, subject to payment of sub-letting charges with interest and composition charges along with other outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines. Shri K.K. Arora was present during the hearing.
12. Plot No. 162, FIE Patparganj – The case for conversion from lease hold to free hold case was considered by the ILMAC as per recommendations of the concerned branch. The applicant is the subsequent purchaser through chain of GPA and Agreement to Sell which is complete to the applicant who is the son of deceased agreement to sell holder and the surviving members of legal heirs of
the deceased have given registered relinquishment deed and NOC in favour of the applicant Shri Jatin Madan. The construction is reported to within the time limit as lease deed was executed on 11.6.91 and ‘D' Form was issued on 27.12.93. Estate Manager has reported the applicant is carrying out the manufacturing activities of readymade garments and has reported nothing adverse against this unit. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicant with payment of outstanding dues, if any, Mr. Jatin Madan was present.
Copy to:1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, UDYOG SADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ, DELHI -92
No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/ Dated
Addendum to the Minutes of the meeting of ILMAC held on 26.4.2010
1. The case of plot No.S-14, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate was considered by the ILMAC as per the recommendation of the concerned branch regarding rejection of conversion application due to the activity of Steel re-rolling being carried out by the applicant. Show-cause Notice already issued to the applicant on 23.6.2009, but no reply is on record. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to reject the conversion application of the applicant for the aforesaid reason and recommends to the branch to take appropriate action in this regard.
2. The case of plot No.87, FIE Patparganj for restoration of cancelled lease was considered by the ILMAC. Shri Vishal Jain, the applicant appeared before the Committee. It has been informed by the concerned branch that as per the letter received from OSD to L.G. at page 317 of the relevant file, the detailed report was required to be submitted for perusal of the Hon’ble L.G. with regard to the representation of the applicant for restoration of this plot. The applicant has also filed an application for conversion from lease hold to free hold in his favour on 23.4.2010 and has been informed by the concerned branch that his conversion application will be processed only if/after the allotment is restored by the competent authority as the status of the plot is cancelled. The reasons for cancellation have been mentioned as unauthorized sale by the allottee Smt. Satya Sharma to Shri Rakesh jain and that no manufacturing activities are being carried out from the premises. The concerned branch has recommended to forward the appeal of restoration filed by the applicant along with the comments and the representation from the applicant for consideration of Hon’ble L.G. in view of the observations of OSD to Hon’ble L.G. ILMAC recommends that the concerned branch should forward the comments, as desired by OSD to Hon’ble L.G. with regard to the appeal of restoration filed by Shri Vishal Jain.
3. The case of Plot No.S-47, Okhla Industrial Area for restorationof cancelled lease was taken up by the Committee as the applicant
had appeared before the Committee on 28.4.2010, without being called by the department. Sh. Anil Khanna, the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. It was observed from the facts/perusal of file, as placed before the Committee by the concerned branch, that the lease deed was determined on 22.11.1999 and eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer on 11.6.2003. The applicant/ex-allottee has filed an appeal before the ADJ against the order of Estate Officer, which was dismissed on 23.4.2008. The ex-allottee has filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the orders passed by ADJ, Tis Hazari which has stayed the operation of the said order. As per the report of Estate Manager, the case is still pending before Hon’ble High Court and as such the matter is sub-judice. The ILMAC, therefore, recommends that since the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court, no further
action can be taken at this stage and concerned branch may take action accordingly.
Copy to:1. Addl.CI (Relocation)2. Addl.CI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT O[F DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 27.4.2010 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 27.04.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
The cases discussed were as under:-1. The case of Plot No. 1778, Narela Industrial Area was placed before
the ILMAC by the concerned branch. The allottee, Shri Krishan Sood was also present. Shri Krishan Sood has requested for execution of lease deed in his favour. However, he is not in possession of original allotment letter and possession letter of the plot. He says he has lost these documents about 7 months ago when he was going on his scooter. He has lodged an FIR in this regard and also published newspaper notice in April,2010 in ‘HINDU’. He has also given an Indemnity Bond. The matter has been deliberated and the file examined. It is seen that the file contains several papers wherein some other persons have signed on behalf of the applicant, Shri Krishan Sood. He has also authorized that one Shri Anil Bansal to act on his behalf. In view of these discrepancies, the branch may thoroughly examine the matter to ascertain the genuineness of the rightful owner of the plot before executing any lease deed.
2. Case of M/s Jain Calendar Tin Moulder bearing Application No. 32236 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor of
the firm has expired and his son has requested for mutation of plot in his favour. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Shri Inder Sen Jain due to death and allows induction of his son Shri Praveen Kumar Jain as Proprietor of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased allottee as per LMG.
3.Case of M/s Associated Trading Company bearing Application No. 2403 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. One partner of the firm (father) has expired and his son, the continuing partner has requested for mutation of plot in his favour. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Shri Shiam Lal Wahi due to death and allows induction of his son Shri Arun Wahi as Proprietor of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased allottee as per LMG.
4. Case of M/s Pankaj Metal works bearing Application NO. 40169 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor of the firm has expired and his wife has requested for mutation of plot in her favour. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, the Committee recommends deletion of name of Shri Rohtash Kumar Gupta due to death and allows induction of his wife, Smt. Raj Bala as Proprietor of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased allottee as per LMG.
5. Case of M/s Sun Lac Paints (P) Ltd. bearing application No. 4294 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were four Directors out of which Shri S.K. Mehra expired and Smt. Babita Mehra resigned from Directorship. Now, Shri Babita Mehra has rejoined the company and have requested for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the party the Committee recommends induction of Smt. Babita Mehra as Director along with the other two continuing Directors without UEI charges as the case is covered within the family
(there is no change in share holding) as per LMG.
6. Case of M/s Ideal Envelopes Manufacturing Co. bearing application No. 9714 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were two partners (real brothers) out of which one expired and his two sons joined the company as partners along with the continuing partners. Later, both the sons of deceased allottee retired in favour of their uncle, Shri Sirajuddin Qureshi who became the proprietor. Now, Shri Qureshi has expired and his wife, Smt. Khair-un-Nisha 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 Shri Sirajuddin Qureshi & Mohd. Din Qureshi due to death and allows induction of former’s wife Smt. Khair-un-Nisha as Proprietor of the firm without the payment of UEI charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs of the deceased allottee and prior to allotment as per LMG.
7. Case of M/s VishwKarma Udyog bearing Application No. 37673 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor of the firm has retired in favour of his son, Shri Satish Kumar Panchal who has requested for transfer of rights and interests of his father in his favour. The Committee examined the documents submitted by the applicant and it is felt that some government documents like, Gift Deed/transfer Deed/Conveyance Deed should be submitted by the party and case may be resubmitted after receiving the desired documents.
8. Case of M/s Alloys Metal Products bearing Application No. 37727 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Proprietor of the firm has retired in favour of his son, Shri Radhey Shyam Goyal who has requested for transfer of rights and interests of his father in his favour. The Committee examined the documents submitted by the applicant and it is felt that some government documents like, Gift Deed/transfer Deed/Conveyance Deed should be submitted by the party and case may be resubmitted after receiving the desired documents.
9. Case of M/s Mayur Enterprises bearing application No. 15764 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution. Earlier there were two partners (real brothers), one of which has expired and son of deceased and son of continuing partner joined the firm as partners. Later, son of the deceased also retired leaving behind partnership of father and son, Shri Madan lal and Shri Sanjiv Arora. The Committee examined the documents submitted by the applicant and it is felt that Relocation Branch may examine any surviving legal heirs of the deceased partners Late Shri Pyare Lal and case may be resubmitted after receiving the desired documents.
10. Case of M/s Rishi Radios bearing Application No. 6948 was taken up by ILMAC for change of constitution earlier and approved subject to execution of registered conveyance deed. The party has sought COC on the basis of registered consent letter by Sub Registrar. Chief Manager (RL) has informed that there are may other cases also where the applicant has sought transfer of plot in their favour from blood relation on the strength of consent letters. ILMAC is of the view that DSIIDC may take legal opinion on the admissibility of such consent letters as legal instruments of transfer.
11. Case of M/s Surie Engineering bearing application No. 9606 was taken up by the ILMAC for approval to change title of the firm to M/s Surie Polex without undergoing any change in name of proprietor and constitution of the firm. ILMAC decided to call the applicant in person for clarification.
12. Plot No. 765 of Narela Industrial Complex – The matter deliberated in ILMAC. It is noted that since order dated 27.9.2001 of Industry Department conveyed the UEI charges for the period of 1.4.93 onwards only, therefore, the Hon’ble High Court has taken a view that the UEI charges of sale dated 11.12.1991 i.e. prior to 1.4.1993 can not be
demanded. The court has accordingly set aside the demand of UEI charges made by the DSIIDC in respect of the first sale date 11.12.1991.
ILMAC is of the view that since the orders of Hon’ble court have policy implications, therefore, Narela Branch of DSIIDC will move a separate note to Industry Department with regard to the applicability of UEI charges in r/o sale transactions prior to 1.4.1993 so that a decision may be taken consistent with the policy in other industrial estates of the department. With regard to the present matter of Plot No. 765, ILMAC is of the view that the order of Hon’ble High Court may be complied with as advised by the standing counsel of DSIIDC, and accordingly the plot may be transferred (plot No.765, NAC) in favour of the applicant/petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar Gupta on receipt of any GR/MC charges, if outstanding.
13. Plot No.1016 of Narela Industrial Complex. Matter considered in ILMAC. ILMAC is of the view that the orders of Hon’ble Court may be complied with, as advised by the DSIIDC Counsel.
14. Plot No. 966 of Narela Industrial Complex – ILMAC recommends conversion of plots to freehold as proposed by the branch, subject to deposit of 18% simple interest for the delayed period of about 4 months on the balance conversion amount of Rs.5,74,000/- and deposit of any other dues pending as per LMG. The recommendation is however, subject to a clear field inspection report.
15. Plot No. 1028 of Narela Industrial Complex - a) Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, photocopies of original documents (Lease
Deed, Possession Letter etc.) to be attested by Notary.b) Report of Estate Manager/Field Officer on prescribed pointsc) Interest on delayed balance conversion charges for the period of
about 5 months @18% simple interest per annum.The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.
Copy to:1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT O[F DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 18.5.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Addl. Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was convened on 18.05.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
The case of plot No.1680 Narela Industrial Complex was discussed as under:-
1. The Narala Branch of DSIIDC has submitted a proposal before the Committee for interpretation of policy related to charging of Unearned Increase charges in case of multiple transfers. As per the prevailing practice, Unearned Increase is being charged against each transfer as per fix rates decided/approved by the Competent Authority. The Land Management Guidelines stipulates under clause-II that if any change is outside the family, in such case sum equal to 50% of the Unearned increase of the market value of the plot will be calculated on the basis of proportionate share in profits of incoming/outgoing partners. The market value will be same as prevailing on the date of application. Accordingly, the Unearned increase charges is to be determined as per the market value - pre-determined rates for first change and subsequently the difference of the previous one and subsequent market rate against the transfer for second change is to be charged. Whereas presently, as mentioned above, for each transfer a fix rate for the respective year against the transfer is being charged. The DDA, which is also a land owning agency, charges unearned increase as per land management guidelines mentioned above against each transfer to bring parity for charging unearned increase in place of transfer charges. The Land Management Guidelines under clause-II stipulates that incase for request for regularization of changes that have already been effected, such
requests would be considered on payment of following additional sum(s):-
a) If request is made within 3 months of the change 2.5% of the sum calculated under para 2(ii)
b) If request is made after 3 months of the change but before 6 months 5% of the sum calculated under para 2(ii)
c) If request is made after 6 months but before one year 7.5% of the sum calculated under para 2(ii)
d) If request is made after one year 10% of the sum calculated under para 2(ii) and 5% for each additional 6 months or part thereof calculated under para 2(ii)
The ILMAC observed that for compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the conversed branch may raise the demand as per the existing Land Management Guidelines.
As regard the proposal, now submitted by the branch, the ILMAC is of the view that branch should bring a copy of relevant papers from DDA on record and thereafter they should submit a proposal for consideration by the competent authority i.e. Hon’ble L.G. in this regard.
Copy to:1. JCI (Relocation)2. JCI (Land-Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT O[F DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 18.5.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Addl. Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was convened on 18.05.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. The case of plot No.1680 Narela Industrial Complex. Minutes of this case has already been issued vide No. CI/Admn./Misc./2010/3162-71 Dated 19.5.2010.
2. The case of Plot No.1523 Narela Allotment Cell in the name of Mohd. Amim Chadinoo was taken up by the ILMAC for change in constitution and execution of lease deed thereafter. The branch has submitted the history of the case. The plot was allotted to Shri Prem Chand in the year 1990. Mohd. Amim Chadinoo purchased the same from Shri Prem Chand in the year 1994 through GPA and Agreement to Sell and other requisite documents. The construction of the factory has already done by the present purchaser for the last 4-5 years. The branch has calculated unearned increase charges as per Land Management Guidelines and composition charges has already been paid as per policy. On the recommendation of the branch the ILMAC recommends to allow Change in Constitution in the name of Mohd. Amim Chadinoo and execution of lease deed thereafter subject to
verification of documents and payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
3. The case of Plot No.479, Narela Allotment Cell in the name of M/s Kripal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. was placed before the ILMAC for conversion from lease hold to free hold with a detailed note. Shri Virender Kumar Gupta, Director of the firm appeared before the Committee. The plot was initially allotted in the name of Mrs. Usha Gupta in the year 1990 and the applicant is subsequent purchaser through GPA and Agreement to Sell. The chain of GPAs are registered and agreement to sell are unregistered and having executed prior to 24.9.2001, which is reported to be complete. Nothing adverse has been reported by the Estate Manager. There is no delay in construction as per guidelines. The conversion charges with surcharge have been paid and realized in the government account. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold as recommended by the concerned branch subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
4. The case of Plot No.1161, Narela Industrial Cell in the name of M/s Adish Associates Pvt. Ltd. was placed before the Committee by the concerned branch for execution of sales deed in the name of subsequent purchaser. The plot was originally allotted to Shri Amit Kumar Garg in the year 1990. M/s Adish Associates Pvt. Ltd. later on purchased this plot from Amit Kumar Gard in the year 1993 through GPA and Agreement to sell etc. The present applicant deposited the balance transfer charges amounting to Rs.1,13,750/- on 12.7.1996 for which the demand was raised on 6.10.1994. Accordingly simple interest @ 18% on the delayed payment on transfer charges is to be realized from the present applicant. Further, the plot is built up in the year 1995 and the composition charges have been paid by the applicant. The concerned branch has recommended the case for execution of lease deed in the name of M/s Adish Associates Pvt. Ltd..
Accordingly, on the basis of the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC is of the view that lease deed may be executed in favour of M/s Adish Associates Pvt. Ltd.. subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any as per guidelines and approval of competent authority.
5. The case of M/s J.P. Metal was taken by the ILMAC as per recommendation of the relocation branch. Shri R.C. Jain, husband of Mrs. Nirmala Devi, the applicant appeared before the ILMAC. It is observed that the earlier Appeal Committee in the meeting held on 13.11.2009 had not recommended the case on the ground that the said challan whose verification was asked was issued by DESU and not by DVB, but the verification report says that this challan was issued by erstwhile DVB. As per the claim of the applicant, since the erstwhile DESU no longer exists and had been converted into DVB, therefore, the concerned existing authority has very well verified the said challan. As per the contents of the verification received from BSES, which is existing after DVB, it is certified by them that as per their file record challan dated 15.11.1995 was issued to M/s Dayanand Flour Mill user M/s J.P. Metal located at 27/94/18 A, Jawala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 against meter No.961004 (K No.0142020) by erstwhile DVB. Considering the same, the applicant’s contention appears to be justified as placed before the ILMAC/Appeal Committee by the concerned branch. The ILMAC accordingly recommends to accept the verification received from BSES with respect to challan dated 15.11.95 and to process the case further by the concerned branch for completing other formalities with the approval of competent authority.
6. The case of plot No.96, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by ILMAC as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. Shri S.L. Goel, authorized by Mrs. Kiran Goel, proprietor of the firm, appeared before
the Committee. It was reported to ILMAC that the completion of construction is within the last extension granted to the applicant and nothing adverse has been reported. The applicant is a subsequent purchaser through chain of GPA/Agreement to sell which are complete. The last agreement to sell was executed on 19.11.2001 and is duly registered as per the requirement of the guidelines. It has been reported that there was a subletting reported on file for an area of 540 Sq.ft. which is less than 50% of permissible floor area. The demand for payment of subletting was raised on 29th july, 2009 which has not been paid till date. The ILMAC, accordingly recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of the applicant, as recommended by the concerned branch, subject to realization of 18% simple interest on the unpaid amount w.e.f. the date of demand to till date and payment of other outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
7. The case of application No.15764 of M/s Mayur Enterprises under relocation was taken by ILMAC for Change in Constitution. On the basis of the documents submitted and recommendation of the relocation branch of DSIIDC, the ILMAC recommends to allow change in constitution without UEI as the changes have been effected prior to issue of provisional eligibility letter.
8. The case of application No.992 of M/s Apothecaries Pvt. Ltd. under relocation was taken by ILMAC for Change in Constitution among Directors/shareholders. Shri Brijesh Regal, Director of the firm along with Shri Deepak Khanna, Finance & Accounts Manager were appeared before the ILMAC. On the basis of the documents submitted by the Company and recommendation of the relocation branch of DSIIDC, the ILMAC recommends to allow deletion of one Director Smkt. Renu Regal from the company on payment of UEI charges on proportionate share transfer.
9. The case of Plot No.1497, Narela Industrial Cell in the name of S/Sh. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal & Rattan Lal Aggarwal was placed before the Committee by the concerned branch for execution of lease. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal & Rattan Lal Aggarwal, the applicants appeared before the Committee. The concerned branch has informed that the said plot was allotted initially in the name of Smt. Ganga Devi in the year 1991. Later on the present applicant purchased the plot from Mrs. Ganga Devi in the year 1993 through GPA and agreement to sell etc. The applicant had deposited the transfer charges of Rs.2,27,500/- on 14.8.1996. The branch has recommended for execution of lease deed in the name of the present applicant subject to payment of regularization charges from the date of transaction to date of deposit. The applicants have also deposited the requisite composition charges for non construction of their factory building. On the basis of recommendations of the concerned branchy, ILMAC recommends to allow execution of lease deed in favour of S/Sh. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal & Rattan Lal Aggarwal with the approval of competent authority subject to payment of regularization of regularization charges and other outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
10. The case plot No.954, Narela Industrial Cell was considered by the ILMAC for transfer of plot in the name of Shri Sandeep Astha. The concerned branch submitted that the said plot was initially allotted to Shri Banarasi Dass Aggarwal in the year 1990, which was subsequently sold to one Shri Bhagat Ram in the year 1993 and later on to Shri Sandeep Astha, the present applicant in the year 1999 through registered GPA and unregistered agreement to sell which was executed prior to 14.9.2001. The lease deed in this case was in the name of the original allottee Shri Banarasi Dass Aggarwal was executed on 14.11.2002. Present allottee has also paid the requisite composition charges of Rs.3,18,500/- on 19.1.2010 for non
construction of their factory building. On the basis of the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow transfer of plot in the name of Shri Sandeep Astha on payment of UEI charges with regularization charges for both the sales subject to submission of registered Conveyance Deed in the name of the present applicant and payment of outstanding dues, if any, apart from UEI charges, as per guidelines.
11. The case of application No.9734 of M/s Allied Traders was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the allottee and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without UEI charges as the changes are within the family (mother to son) subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
12. The case of application No.46480 of M/s Saguma Wires Pvt. Ltd. under relocation scheme was taken up by ILMAC. The concerned branch submitted that there is a change in the Directorship within the family. Further it is observed that there is change in shareholders of the company amongst shareholders, accordingly the concerned branchy should examine and release UEI charges, if applicable, on the proportionate share transfers outside the family amongst the shareholders. ILMAC further recommends change of constitution to subject to payment of UEI charges and other outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
13 The case of application No.47664 of M/s Subhash Chand Jindal was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without UEI charges as the changes are within the family (husband to wife) subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
14. The case of application No.39560 of M/s Vijender Furniture was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without UEI charges as the changes are within the family (mother to son) subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
15. The case of application No.31615 of M/s Akash Deep Industries was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without payment of UEI charges as the changes are within the family (father to son) due to death of father subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
16 he case of application No.35383 of M/s Karan Enterprises was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without payment of UEI charges as the changes are within the family (mother to son) due to death of mother subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
17. The case of application No.34542 of M/s Surya Foundary was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without payment of UEI charges as the changes are within the family (father to son) due to death of father subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
16. The case of application No.34497 was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the
ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution(deletion of two partners) outside the family having 30% share and having induction of two sons of the remaining partners on payment of UEI charges i.e. 30% on the share of two outgoing partners. subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
17. The case of application No.33018 of M/.s Dev Sons Industries was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution without payment of UEI charges as the changes are within the family, after the death of the original allottee in favour of his grand son as legal heir subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines
18. The case of application No.56726 of M/s Shanta Housary Factory was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change of constitution from partnership firm to private limited company without UEI charges as changes occurred in the year 1998 prior to issue of Professional Eligibility Letter (PEL) subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
19.The case of application No.1484 of M/s Litwel India Limited was taken up by the ILMAC for change of constitution. On the basis of documents submitted by the applicant and on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC recommends to allow change in Directorship of one Shri Suresh Dhingra, outside the family who become Director in the year 2006 without any shareholding for a short period without UEI charges as there is no change in shareholding of the company subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.
Copy to:1. Addl. CI (Relocation)2. Addl. CI (Land- Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member Convener
GOVERNMENT OF NCT O[F DELHIOFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES-
419, 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 24.5.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Addl. Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was convened on 24.05.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. The case of Plot No.81, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Area for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee. The concerned Deputy Commissioner has presented this case before the ILMAC. This plot was originally allotted to Shri Vimal Kumar Vachar on 3.3.1981 who executed GPA in favour of Shri Hira Lal Kalra s/o Shri Hans Raj Kalra r/o 671, Shish Mahal, Teli Wara, Behind Azad Market Delhi-6 as his true and the lawful general power of attorney. He also executed registered `WILL” on 27th Oct., 1984 and unregistered agreement to sell on 7th Jan., 85 in favour of Smt. Saroj Kalra w/o Shri Hira Lal and Smt. Pushpa Kalra w/o Shri Balbir Raj both residents of 671, Shish Mahal, Teli Wara, Behind Azad Market Delhi-6. ‘WILL” is operational on the death of testator/executent. The GPA Shri Hira Lal Kalra expired on 15.11.1997 without moving application for conversion from lease hold to free hold for the above said plot No.81, Phase-II, BIA, Delhi. As per the conversion policy, an application is required to be moved by the allottee or his GPA for conversion of plot from lease hold to free hold. In the instant case the application was moved in the name of expired GPA holder Shri Hira Lal Kalra, but was signed by Smt. Saroj Kalra w/o Shri Hira Lal and Smt. Pushpa Kalra w/o Shri Balbir Raj in their individual capacity. In view of the above, ILMAC is of the view that a self contained note to be put up by the concerned branch for taking legal opinion of the Law & Judicial Department of Delhi Government. After obtaining opinion of Law Department, this case may be placed before ILMAC.
2. Flat No.D-169, FFC Okhla. The allotment of this flat was made to Shri Gopi Nath Arora on rental basis. Shri Gopi Nath Arora expired on 13 th June, 2003. subsequent to this his wife Smt. Pawan Arora, without getting the property muted in her favour, executed a partnership deed with Shri Rajiv Katyal on dated 22nd April, 2006. Smt. Pawan Arora applied for conversion of this rental property to hire purchase on dated 27.6.2006. Since the applicant applied for hire purchase, after executing partnership deed, the case for change in constitution and hire purchase was rejected by the then Competent Authority. Subsequent to this, now Smt. Pawan Arora has applied for mutation in her favour enclosing all relevant documents i.e. Relinquishment Deed, Indemnity Bond duly registered with sub-registrar and an affidavit. The applicant has also submitted a dissolution deed dissolving the earlier partnership deed vide which Shri Rajiv Katyal has retired (dissolution deed dated 10th Feb., 2010). On the recommendation of the branch, the ILMAC is of the considered view to recommend to allow mutation in favour of Smt. Pawan Arora, wife of late Shri Gopi Nath Arora subject to recovery of dues, if any, i.e. rental, interest etc. No composition chargers is leviable for mutation as property has been inherited by allottee’s wife.
3. The file pertaining to fixation of conversion charges from lease hold to to free hold and fixation of UEI charges for the financial year 2010-11 was discussed in detail in ILMAC in which Shri H.L. Malik, Advisor DITE was also invited. After detailed discussion and the deliberations, the ILMAC is of the view that conversion charges and market rates for the purpose of fixation of UEI charges for the year 2009-10, it is found that in the preceding years the conversion charges and the market rate for the purpose of UEI charges was fixed by enhancing 10% over the rates of the preceding year. On the same analogy, the conversion charges and the market rates for the year 2010-11 will be fixed by enhancing 10% over the
rates of 2009-10. Accordingly, the Land Coordination Branch will take appropriate action in this regard for moving a proposal for seeking approval of the competent authority.
4. The case of Plot No.29, Phase-II, Badli Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee as per the recommendation of the concerned branch. The concerned Deputy Commissioner has presented this case before the ILMAC. Originally this plot, measuring 283.5 Sq. yards, was allotted to M/s Satish Kapur & Sons on 5.3.1983. The allottee executed registered GPA in favour of Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain r/o K-1/4, Model Town, Delhi as his true and lawful general power of attorney. The registered GPA holder moved an application on 23.3.2006 for conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain r/o K-1/4, Model Town, Delhi who also has agreement to sell in his name dated 27th June, 1984 from Shri Satish Kapur & Sons. Nothing adverse has been reported as per the report of the Estate Manager. The case seems to be in order. Accordingly, ILMAC recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold in favour of Mukesh Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain r/o K-1/4, Model Town, Delhi subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
5. Flat No.A-6, FFC Okhla. Shri Harvinder Singh, Original allottee of the flat A-6, FFC Okhla applied for hire purchase on 29.6.2006, which was received in the department on 30.6.2006. A Show-Cause-Notice was issued to the allottee as there was an encroachment on government land. On removal of the encroachment, the action stipulated stands dropped vide letter dated 7.4.2010 as the applicant removed the encroachment vide Estate Manager’s report dated 30.8.1996 (C-164 on file). The ILMAC is of the considered view to recommend the case to allow to convert the flat on hire purchase subject to payment of hire purchase cost and dues, if any. It is
also recommended to allow rent adjustment against the hire purchase cost as hire purchase was applied within the stipulated time i.e. 30.6.2006.
6. Flat No. 368, FFC Okhla. One Shri Subodh Rehaja had applied for hire prucahse on behalf of Shri Tribhuan Anand on dated 16.6.2006. From the record it reveals that Shri Tribhuan Anand is having no locus-standi in the flat in question. There is one dissolution deed on record dated 4.4.2000 vide which Smt. Rama Anand has retired from the partnership firm name M/s Karshni Intertech. There is no partnership deed on record between Smt. Rama Anand and Sh. Tribhuan Anand. The applicant Sh. Tribhuan Anand has filed a GPA from Canada which is of dated 22nd July, 2008 authorizing Shri Subodh Veer Rehaja to execute all documents on his behalf. The Committee is of considered view that since the GPA of dated 22.7.2008 is in favour of Shri Subodh Veer Rehaja whereas he has given acceptance of hire purchase on dated 16.6.2006, which is prior to the date of GPA executed, hence the Committee recommends for rejection of application of hire purchase received from Shri Subodh Rehaja.
7. Flat No. B-177, FFC Okhla. Smt. Sruti Kashiv has applied for change in Constitution in her favour. Earlier the case was rejected by the then C.I. has signature of Shri Deepak on dissolution deed did not match with the erstwhile partnership deed against which change in constitution was allowed vide letter dated 27.10.1998 (C-172) in which Shri Deepk was made 49% shareholding in the existing partnership firm M/s Laxmi Engineering and Packaging Industries. Subsequently department, based on the opinion of the Law Department, decided that in all such cases where change in constitution was effected in past and signature of erstwhile partners are not matching, in such cases, the present applicant will submit an affidavit giving details of partnership and dissolution deed that the signatures of these documents are genuine. Further the applicant will also have to submit an Indemnity Bond that he will bear the entire responsibility for any dispute in the property in future. Indemnity Bond and Affidavit has been
submitted by the applicant Smt. Sruti Kashiv. Based on the recommendation of the concerned branch, the ILMAC is of the considered view to allow change in constitution in favour of Mrs. Sruti kashiv, subject to payment of dues, if any and any other formalities required to be completed in terms of Land Management Guidelines. Further the Committee also recommends for conversion of plot from rental to hire purchase without rent adjustment and subject to recovery of hire purchase cost as well dues, if any.
Minutes of the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) held on 25.5.2010 at 11.30 A.M. in the chamber of Addl. Commissioner of Industries.
A meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC) was convened on 25.05.2010 at 11.30 A.M. which was attended by the following members:-
1. The case of M/s R.K. Enterprises bearing application No.20162 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Tapash Kumar Chatterjee, without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
2. The case of M/s Vardhman Steel Industries bearing application No.22819 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Yeetender Kumar Jain without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
3. The case of M/s Yadav Plastic Industries application No.38465 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of
documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Jitesh Yadav without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the family subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
4. The case of M/s Hindustan Paper Agency bearing application No.30005 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Naresh Madan without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within family subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
5. The case of M/s Gurbhachan Das & Co. bearing application No.13262 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
6. The case of M/s Packaging India bearing application No.12613 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the legal heirs subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
7. The case of M/s A.V. Consulting Engineers bearing application No.31068 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Ajey Ved Vyas without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the family subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
8. The case of M/s Sanjay Wire Industries bearing application No.12132 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Shiv Kumar without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is
within the family subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
9. The case of M/s Multipak Laminates Pvt. Ltd. bearing application No.10126 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Naresh Dua & Seema Dua without payment of UEI Charges as the transfer is within the family subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
10.The case of M/s Guardian Cables & Conductors (P) Ltd. bearing application No.36933 was taken up by ILMAC for COC. On the basis of documents submitted, the Committee recommends COC in favour of Shri Naresh Kumar Bansal, Smt. Mithlesh Bansal, Shri Jagdish Prasad Bansal, Shri Manohar Lal Bansal & Shri Mahavir Bansal without payment of UEI Charges as the as the changes occurred in 1997, prior to issue of offer-cum-demand letter subject to payment of dues, if any, as per guidelines.
Copy to:1. Addl. CI (Relocation)2. Addl. CI (Land- Okhla)3. PS to CI/CMD(DSIIDC)
(A.K. Saxena)Member
Convener
1. The case of Shed No.68, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee as per the facts placed before it by the concerned branch. Shri Ajay Kumar, GPA holder of the firm appeared before ILMAC. It is observed that the applicants are subsequent purchase and conversion has sought in respect of built up shed. The branch has recommended the case along with the observation regarding a sub-letting reported in the year 1999 for discussion. The ILMAC observed that the issue of subletting has raised was considered by the then Commissioner of Industries, who had observed that since three units functioning from the same premises are operationally inter-linked and managed by the same person without any physical demarcation of the premises on the spot, it is doubtful whether it can be regarded as a case of subletting. Accordingly, approval of the Lessor was sought for allotment of shed in favour of the applicant unit M/s. Gungun Expo Fashion Pvt. Ltd. with the satisfaction that the issue of subletting will be sorted out later in consultation with Law & Judicial Department. From the facts available on record, it is noticed that the department had taken no action with regard to sort out issue of subletting in consultation with Law & Judicial Department in spite of the fact that the file was routed through Law department for vetting of lease deed. The
lease deed was executed in favour of M/s Gungun Expo Pvt. Ltd. and the shed was subsequently sold by this unit in the year 2003. There is nothing on record to suggest the area occupied by the unit reported to be subletted at that point of time (1999-2001). Therefore demand for subletting at this belated stage that too in the absence of any specific area of subletting available on record and after party has already dispose off the property in the year 2003. however, the branch may placed the matter to Commissioner of Industries in this regard. As regards, the reported subletting to I.T. firm by the present applicant in view of the order dt.13.5.99, providers of these services will not be considered as tenants and they will not be liable to pay any subletting charges. Further the concerned branch may right a letter to the concerned local body i.e. MCD to take action with regard to reported unauthorized construction under building bye laws, as provided in the guidelines. ILMAC therefore recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
2. M/s Chanda Cables, Present Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, the applicant.
3. The case of Shed No.68, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Estate for conversion from lease hold to free hold was considered by the Committee as per the recommendation concerned branch and in view of the observations made on 18.1.2010 as per the minutes placed at page C/565. The applicant has now furnished the Notary attested photocopy of registered Conveyance Deed in favour of M/s Poly Glass Fibre Industries Pvt. Ltd. as was directed by the branch. The case is reported to be complete and all other formalities are complete as per the conversion format at C/554-
556 of the relevant file. ILMAC, therefore, recommends to allow conversion from lease hold to free hold subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any, as per guidelines.
4. Galtex Industries, Present Shri Dharam Chand, Partner of the firm
![[PPT]PowerPoint Presentation - IBEF · Web viewBawana Industrial Area is located in Northern part of Delhi, where DSIDC will develop 15,250 plots of 100-250 square metre each by 2021.](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5aae2c677f8b9a5d0a8bcf54/pptpowerpoint-presentation-ibef-viewbawana-industrial-area-is-located-in-northern.jpg)
