IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Premium on unearned increase is being charged only on value of the land and not on value of transaction.
(2) Transfer of land allotted for industrial purpose – Policy of BIADA fixing cost of land on the basis of circle rate applicable is legal and valid.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The legal issue involved in these appeals is whether the Patna High Court was right in holding that when the allottee of land, allotted for industrial purposes, further transferred the land to some other entity, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) was only entitled to recover the unearned increase on the basis of cost of land and development charges and not on the basis of the market value of the land or the circle rate of the land.

3. In view of the decision that we intend to take in these four cases before us, it is not necessary to give the facts of each case in detail. However, for the purposes of decision of these set of appeals, we may refer to the facts in C.A. No.8222/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5251/2017). Clause 4(i) of the Lease Deed entered into between the State of Bihar and M/s. Orient Beverages Ltd. to which the land was granted on lease for a period of 99 years for a sum of Rs.42,000/- plus rent of Rs.87.50 per year, reads as follows:

"Clause 4(i):-

That the lessee will not assign, mortgage, underlet or part with the possession over the land or any right or interest therein or in respect thereto without the previous consent of the lessor or its nominee."

4. Clause 4(ii) of the Lease Deed provided that no transfer of lease shall take place unless specifically permitted by the State. The said clause reads as follows:

"Clause 4(ii):-

No change in the lease, proprietorship or partnership, if it is a private limited or unlimited company or a registered or an unregistered firm, shall be recognized without the previous written consent of the lessor or his nominee."

5. It is not disputed that the rights of the State of Bihar have finally been transferred to the BIADA though, in between, there may have been some other authorities also but that is not relevant for the decision of this case.

6. In the year 1998, the original lessee M/s. Orient Beverages Ltd. applied for transfer of the leasehold rights in favour of M/s. Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling North East Pvt. Ltd. and a sum of Rs.17,50,000/-was paid as premium at the time of the said transfer. It appears that the transfer by Orient Beverages Ltd. in favour of Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling North East Pvt. Ltd. was made for a sum of Rs.2.02 crores. Later in the year 1999, a scheme of amalgamation was entered into between Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling North West Pvt. Ltd., Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling South East Pvt. Ltd. and Bharat Coca-Cola North West Pvt. Ltd. (transferee of the lease) and all these three amalgamated to form Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling South West Pvt. Ltd. This scheme of amalgamation was approved by the Delhi High Court on 10.09.1999. The name of M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling South West Pvt. Ltd. was changed to M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. which is the respondent before us and the original writ petitioner before the High Court. Thereafter, a communication was sent to the appellant(s) that there was change in the name and the name should be changed in the record of the appellant-Authority and this permission was granted on payment of some nominal fees.

7. In the meantime, a Committee was constituted by the Government of Bihar to lay down the modalities and fees for transfer of industrial estates from the allottees to some other person. The relevant recommendations of the Committee are as follows:

"(a) The Lease holders should have the right to transfer or sale the land by paying fee if land use is not changed;

(b) The amount recommended was 15% of the present market value in case of transfer or sale;"

8. On 18.12.2003, an office order was issued by the Appellant-Authority permitting change in the Constitution of the allottee after taking 15% of the circle rate for the land at the time and other dues payable. On 12.03.2004, a specific order was issued permitting transfer of a land on payment of 15% of the prescribed rate. Thereafter, on 10.03.2005, a letter was issued by the appellant-Au