JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral) Undisputedly, vide order dated 16.08.2004, plot, in question i.e. plot no. 5, Sector 88 in Integrated Industrial Estate, BHEL, Haridwar was allotted in favour of Uttaranchal Lamps – Sri Rakesh Goel on the conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 16.08.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition); original allottee M/s Uttaranchal Lamps had deposited the consideration and additional premium, as demanded by the respondents / SIDCUL; original allottee M/s Uttaranchal Lamps, for some reasons, was unable to set up the unit, therefore, decided to sell the allotted plot; negotiation took place between the original allottee i.e. M/s Uttaranchal Lamps and M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Limited (now, M/s Paras Electricals Ltd. – petitioner, herein); original allottee sought permission to transfer the allotted plot in favour of M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd., which was acceded vide order dated 05.08.2005 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition); transfer charges and entire required amount was paid by the petitioner, therefore, vide letter dated 25.10.2005, petitioner was informed to submit non judicial stamp papers of Rs. 1,52,000/- and Rs. 100/- for the purpose of executing lease deed and to pay Rs. 1,52,000/- and Rs. 100/- for the purpose of executing lease deed and to pay Rs. 17,060/- towards lease rent; petitioner submitted requisite stamp papers and also paid lease rent, as demanded by respondents/SIDCUL vide letter dated 25.10.2005; thereafter, vide letter dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) SIDCUL/respondents declined to execute lease deed in favour of M/s Paras Electricals Ltd. – petitioner, herein, saying permission to transfer the allotted plot was granted in favour of M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and not in favour of M/s Paras Electricals Ltd.; thereafter, on 23.02.2006, a letter was issued in the name of M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. stating that since transferee/allottee has failed to utilize the allotted plot and has not commenced the commercial production within two years from the date of allotment, therefore, as to why allotment may not be cancelled; on 09.03.2006, reply was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice saying since possession was to be handed over after execution of the lease deed and neither lease deed was executed nor possession was handed over, therefore, neither machinery could be installed nor production could be commenced; respondents were further informed that earlier M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. was private limited Company, however, vide resolution dated 09.05.2005, it was resolved to incorporate the Company as limited company and permission was sought in this regard and Registrar of Companies was pleased to issue certificate to that effect on 08.07.2005 whereby M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. was permitted to be incorporated and registered as M/s Paras Electricals Ltd., therefore, transferee is the same and there is no change of Company except it was earlier a private limited Company and later on, it is incorporated as limited Company; respondents did not agree with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter, impugned order dated 13.03.2006 was passed canceling the allotment and forfeiting the amount deposited by the original allottee and thereafter, by the transferee – petitioner herein; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed present petition. 2. As per Clause 9 of the allotment letter dated 16.08.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), possession shall be handed over to the allottee, after execution of the lease deed and lease deed is to be executed, after receiving 50% of the total allotment cost of the plot. 2. As per Clause 9 of the allotment letter dated 16.08.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), possession shall be handed over to the allottee, after execution of the lease deed and lease deed is to be executed, after receiving 50% of the total allotment cost of the plot. Although, Clause 12 of the allotment letter dated 16.08.2004 stipulates that lessee would utilize minimum 30% area of the plot and start commercial production within 2 years from the date of allotment. However, in my considered opinion, commercial production could only be started only after delivery of possession, which was to be delivered after execution of the lease deed, as per Clause 9. 3. In my considered opinion, if clause 9 and 12 are read together the only reasonable interpretation would be that lease deed shall be executed, after receiving 50% of the total cost of plot and possession of the plot shall be handed over immediately, after execution of the lease deed and allotted plot must be utilized and commercial production must be commenced within two years from the date of delivery of possession. 4. Because no machinery can be installed and no commercial production can be commenced, until and unless possession is delivered to the allottee and possession can be delivered only after execution of the lease deed, therefore, Clause 9 and 12 must be understood in the fashion, as interpreted hereinbefore. This is not the case of the respondents that M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paras Electricals Ltd. are two different entities. It is also not disputed by respondents that earlier petitioner was named as M/s Paras Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and later on, it was incorporated as limited Company, therefore, refusal to execute lease deed seems to be totally unjustified. 5. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, petition succeeds. 6. At this stage, Mr. A.K. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 2 submits that as per Stamps Act, as applicable in State of Uttarakhand, stamp duty has to be paid on the market value, prevailing on the date of execution and registration of the document, therefore, petitioner should pay stamp duty for the lease deed, as per prevailing rate as on date. 7. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.03.2006 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondents no. 7. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.03.2006 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondents no. 1 and 3 are directed to intimate the petitioner about the deficit stamp duty to be paid by the petitioner within two weeks from today for execution of the lease deed; thereafter, petitioner shall submit the deficit stamp duty within next two weeks and thereafter, lease deed shall be executed and registered in favour of the petitioner within next two weeks subject to payment of balance amount, if any. Thereafter, possession shall be handed over to the petitioner immediately, after execution and registration of the lease deed. Petitioner shall install the machinery and commence the commercial production within two years from the date of execution of lease deed and delivery of the possession. Parties shall abide by the terms and condition of lease deed and allotment letter. No order as to costs.