The order issued by State-owned State Industries Corpn of T Nadu (SIPCOT) cancelling 0.44 acres of land in Siruseri in Kancheepuram Dt allotted to M/s Search Corpn, Chennai for putting up an industry has been set aside by Madras High Court as it was an action “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable”.

Allowing a writ petition by the firm challenging order dated November 11, 2009 by Estate Officer, SIPCOT, Siruseri u/s 5 of TN Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, Mr Justice K. Chandru directed petitioner to comply with conditions of lease reached with respondents as more than six years had elapsed since allotment of land.

The petitioner, the judge ruled, should not be allowed to prolong through court order in complying with lease conditions.

Respondent (SIPCOT) contended that relationship between them and petitioner was purely contractual and that against cancellation of land allotment, no writ petition could be preferred. It was stipulated in lease agreement that in case of violation of conditions, it was open to respondent to cancel allotment of land.

By notice dated June 14, 2006 respondent asked petitioner to show cause as to how they had not complied with condition of commencing construction and that failure to do so would result in cancellation of land allotment. In response, petitioner submitted that they were ready to start construction, but they could not do so because road no 10 leading to the plot was not ready.

The judge observed that respondents had not given any answer regarding non-laying of approach road and also about temporary approach was not conducive for taking construction equipment. Meanwhile, impugned order was issued stating that under clause 18 of lease deed as also allotment conditions were violated inasmuch as petitioner had not commenced construction.

Respondents contended that there was no necessity to provide any road and most of the basic infrastructure had been provided.

It was strange, the judge said, that office of SIPCOT was functioning on parallel lines, and to avoid lengthy correspondence, CMD of SIPCOT should have direct meeting with allottee to sort out matter. Also, respondents should not have behaved in unreasonable fashion. The impugned order was set aside and writ petitions would stand allowed, the judge ruled.

Related Topics