Honble SHARMA, J.—The petitioner in these writ petitions seeks to quash show cause notice issued by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner in regard to payment of enhanced compensation. Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in all these three matters, I proceed to decide them by a common order.

(2). For the convenience the facts of writ petition No. 5043/1991 are taken up. In the year 1976 vast chunks of land situated in villages near Delhi Alwar Highway in Alwar District was handed over by the State Government to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (herein after to be referred as Corporation). On December 14, 1976 a communication was issued by the Corporation to the petitioner regarding allotment of undeveloped land at Alwar and on May 10, 1977 a lease deed was executed between the Corporation and the petitioner and land measuring 2,38,714 square meters situated in Malsya Industrial Area was handed over to the petitioner. Clause 2(a) of the lease deed was as under:—

"2(a). The lessee will bear pay and discharge all taxes, rates, charges and assessment which may during the lease term be assessed, charged or imposed in respect of the demised premises or the building to be erected thereupon."

The petitioner constructed a factory complex and installed machinery for the purpose of conducting its manufacturing operations in the year 1977 on the said land. In the meanwhile some land owners, not feeling satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed a reference before the concerned court that allowed the claim partly and increased the compensation payable towards the acquisition of the claimants land. The appeal filed by the Corporation against the said order was dismissed on May 1, 1989. Prior to filing the appeal, the petitioner was informed by the Corporation that since the land had been acquired for the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner shall have to bear the expenses for filing appeal against the order of enhancement of compensation.

(3). The petitioner however through its counsel informed the Corporation on April 23, 1983 that the terms and conditions of the lease were crystallized ad stipulated in the lease deed which did not provide for enhancement of the lease rent or development charges in the event of enhancement of compensation for land acquired by the Government for the Corporation. The Corporation vide letter dated May 3, 1983 reiterated its earlier stand and stated that the petitioner was liable to bear the consequences of enhancement of compensation in view of clause 2(a) of the lease deed. In response thereto the petitioner vide letter dated May 10, 1983 informed that though the petitioner was not liable or bound under the lease deed to pay any additional compensation however to maintain cordial relations it was prepared to bear the expenses for filing the appeal against the enhancement of compensation but the same should not be construed as an admission or acceptance of liability to pay additional compensation. Thereafter the Corporation asked the petitioner to give undertaking that it was prepared to accept the liability of enhanced compensation. In answer thereto the petitioner sent letter dated June 4, 1983 to the Corporation that the lease deed did not stipulate any such condition yet with the view to maintain cordial relations it prepared to undertake that it would abide by any decision that may be given by Arbitrator to be appointed as per clause 3(h) and the matter could be referred for resolving the question as to whether the petitioner was liable for compensation so enhanced. The Corporation again asked the petitioner vide letter dated January 15, 1985 to pay the enhanced compensation. In response thereto the petitioner vide letter dated January 17,1985 stated that the lease deed did not envisage any payment by the petitioner other than what was stipulated therein, however the petitioner was prepared to undertake th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document