Facts
The petitioner sought a writ directing the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (“HSIIDC”) to release subsidy under the Haryana Industrial Policy, 1999, including a 20% rebate on the additional/enhanced cost of land and interest on the subsidy amount.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The petitioner contended that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Hamdard Laboratories v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, (2017) 2 SCC 536, which held that additional cost forming part of enhanced land compensation is eligible for the rebate.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 2–3HSIIDC stated that, by letter dated 17 July 2019, the petitioner had been asked to furnish a no-dues certificate from the Estate Division and proof of having remained in production for one year; it undertook to release the applicable rebate within six weeks after receipt of those documents.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3The petitioner agreed to submit the documents and sought an order binding HSIIDC to its undertaking.
Source reference: p.3, para. 4Issues
Whether the petitioner was entitled to a 20% rebate on the additional/enhanced cost of land paid towards proportionate enhanced compensation under the applicable industrial policy.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 1–2Whether release of the rebate could be made subject to the petitioner furnishing a no-dues certificate and proof of having been in production for one year.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Law Applied
The Court applied the Haryana Industrial Policy, 1999, under which the eligible rebate was to be calculated with reference to the cost of land.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1Relying on Hamdard Laboratories v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, (2017) 2 SCC 536, the Court held that additional cost of land forming part of enhanced land compensation is included in the enhanced cost of land and attracts the 20% rebate.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The Court also followed the Coordinate Bench decision in Elite Equipment India Private Limited v. State of Haryana, CWP-32391-2019, which applied the same principle.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s rule in Hamdard Laboratories directly governed the petitioner’s claim because the additional amount had been paid towards proportionate enhanced compensation for the land.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 2 and 5(i)Accordingly, the Court held that the rebate was not confined to the original price of the plot but extended to the total price paid, including the additional/enhanced amount.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 2 and 5(i)At the same time, the Court took note of HSIIDC’s assertion that two requisite documents remained outstanding.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Since the petitioner agreed to furnish them and HSIIDC undertook to process the rebate thereafter, the Court incorporated that undertaking into its directions.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Holding
The petitioner was held entitled to a 20% rebate on the total price paid for the land, including the additional price paid on account of proportionate enhanced compensation.
The petitioner was directed to submit the no-dues certificate from the Estate Division and proof of having been in production for one year.
Source reference: p.4, para. 5(ii)HSIIDC was directed, in accordance with its undertaking, to release the amount payable towards the 20% rebate within six weeks of receipt of those documents.
Source reference: p.4, para. 5(ii)The writ petition was disposed of.
Source reference: p.4, para. 5Original Court PDF
Ms Challen International India Private LimitedvsThe Haryana State Industrial And Infrstructure Development Corporation
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
