M/S Kalyan Realties Through Partner Smt. Premlata Garg vs. Indore Development Authority Through Chief Executive Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 9, 2020, and the demand notice issued pursuant thereto by the respondent No.2/Estate Officer, IDA, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The reasoning was that these were based solely on the resolution dated February 21, 2019, which had already been quashed by this Court in the case of Brilliant Estates Ltd. (supra). Although the Court acknowledged that Brilliant Estates involved an amalgamation, it found that even in the present case of an outright transfer through a registered sale deed, the petitioner had paid the proper stamp duty. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order and demand notice. The ratio decidendi is that any demand or action based on a resolution that has been judicially quashed is unsustainable. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order and demand, and to direct the respondents to transfer the lease in the name of the petitioner after charging the due fees as prescribed under the Niyam of 2018. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kalyan Realities, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice and order dated November 9, 2020, issued by the Estate Officer of the Indore Development Authority (IDA). The IDA had demanded Rs. 52,50,000/- as transfer fee, based on a resolution dated February 21, 2019. The petitioner sought the quashment of this demand and order, and a direction to transfer the name of the firm on a plot upon payment of Rs. 5,000/- (excluding GST) as transfer fee, as prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampattiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018. The petitioner contended that their case was covered by a previous High Court order in Brilliant Estates Ltd. vs. Indore Development Authority, which had quashed similar resolutions levying excessive transfer fees. The IDA argued that the present case was distinguishable as it involved an outright transfer via a registered sale deed, unlike the amalgamation in Brilliant Estates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice and order dated November 9, 2020, issued by the respondent No.2/Estate Officer, IDA, are sustainable in law, considering that they are based on a resolution dated February 21, 2019, which has been previously quashed by this Court? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their case is squarely covered by the High Court's order in Brilliant Estates Ltd. vs. Indore Development Authority, which was affirmed by the Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court. They contended that the resolution dated February 21, 2019, relied upon by the respondents to charge a 3% transfer fee, had already been quashed. Therefore, the impugned demand and order should be quashed, and the lease should be transferred upon payment of the prescribed fee under the Niyam of 2018. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (IDA) argued that the petitioner's case is distinguishable from Brilliant Estates Ltd. because the present case involves an outright transfer through a registered sale deed, whereas Brilliant Estates concerned an amalgamation. However, the respondents could not deny that the resolution dated February 21, 2019, had been quashed by this Court and affirmed up to the Supreme Court.