Raftaar Terminals Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the amounts to be charged from the petitioner would only be the Right of Way charges as provided at Clause B to Annexure-C, with applicable revisions from time to time. The Court reasoned that the 'Right of Way' permission granted to the petitioner, as well as the 'Right of Way Permission Deed' entered into between the parties, stipulated that the petitioner would pay 'Advance Annual Right of Way rent' as per the existing Schedule of Rates (SoR) notified by TAMP, with applicable service tax/GST. The Deed also provided for escalation and revision of these rates. The Court found that the NMPT was entitled to collect way-leave charges as applicable in accordance with law, as per the terms of Annexure-C. The Court noted the specific submissions of the NMPT that only way-leave charges as applicable in terms of Clause B of Annexure-C would be charged and that demands would be in accordance with Annexure-C. The Court directed the NMPT to formulate terms and conditions for the 'Right of Way' as per the Land Policy guidelines and to rework the demand based on the applicable way-leave charges.

Facts

The petitioner, Raftaar Terminals Private Limited, was granted a 'Right of Way' for laying pipelines through land belonging to the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT), the 4th respondent, for 30 years from March 6, 2016. A 'Right of Way Permission Deed' was executed on October 1, 2019. The petitioner contended that the NMPT illegally demanded lease rent, violating the terms of the permission and the deed. The NMPT argued that the demands were in accordance with policy guidelines for land management applicable to major ports, specifically referencing a Tariff Notification (Annexure-C) dated March 28, 2018, which revised schedules of rates. The NMPT clarified that demands were for way-leave charges as per Annexure-C, not lease rent, and that any prior references to lease rent were mistakes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tariff Notification dated March 28, 2018 (Annexure-C), issued by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP), is applicable to the 'Right of Way' granted to the petitioner for laying pipelines, and if so, to what extent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the 'Right of Way' granted was not a leasehold right or license, but solely for laying pipelines. They contended that the NMPT's demand for lease rent was illegal and in violation of the agreed terms and the 'Right of Way Permission Deed'. They sought a direction that Annexure-C should not be applied to their 'Right of Way'. Revenue/State's (NMPT) arguments: The NMPT contended that the demands were in accordance with the applicable policy guidelines for land management, specifically the Land Policy Guidelines of 2014 and the revised schedule of rates in Annexure-C. They argued that Annexure-C provided for way-leave charges for laying pipelines, calculated based on the area occupied, and that any mention of lease rent in earlier communications was a mistake. They relied on the specific provisions within Annexure-C regarding way-leave charges.