JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is stated to be a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and presently governed by the Companies Act, 2013. They say that, they were allotted, on higher purchase, an extent of five Acres of land in the Industrial Development Area, Kanjikkode, Palakkad, through Ext.P1, as early as on 12.07.1994; pursuant to which, Ext.P2 agreement was entered into with the Manager of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad, binding themselves as to the terms of such allotment. 2. The petitioner says that, as per Ext.P2 agreement, they were to pay the total value of the plot, namely Rs. 4,14,000/- in 10 equal annual installments, along with 6.5% interest, commencing from 30.08.1995 and that they paid off the said amount without breach. They say that this is manifest from Exts.P3 and P4 communications issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre on 26.08.2008 and 19.10.2009 respectively, unequivocally certifying that they have paid off the entire amount of Rs. 9,06,000/-, being the land value and interest and are thus eligible to get ‘Patta’ with respect to the land in question, subject to the clearing of balance of the land cost, that may be demanded in future. They say that no such demand was made, thus demonstrating that the value paid by them was the full one; and that subsequently, they were also allowed to mortgage the said land for the purpose of raising capital through outside funding. 3. The petitioner says that, subsequently on 23.01.2020, they made a request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Industries Centre, so as to enable them to obtain a loan on the strength of the property, but that rather strangely, the same was rejected through Ext.P15 saying that, as per the latest Rules governing the allotment, namely G.O. (MS) No. 8/2020/ID (hereinafter referred to as the 2020 Rules), which came into force on 08.01.2020, their request cannot be acceded to, because by the change of their share holding will have to be construed as being a transfer, which is impermissible. 4. The petitioner asserts that, Ext.P15 is illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules, particularly because they had become the owners of the land, on payment of the entire sale consideration, as early as in the year 2007 or 2008. 4. The petitioner asserts that, Ext.P15 is illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules, particularly because they had become the owners of the land, on payment of the entire sale consideration, as early as in the year 2007 or 2008. They therefore, pray that Ext.P15 be set aside and the competent respondent be directed to accede to their request, without any further delay. 5. I have heard Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. S. Sujin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that, going by Ext.P1 - which is the order of allotment on “Hire Purchase” the same is governed by G.O. (MS) No. 169/69/ID dated 05.04.1969 (for brevity 1969 Rules). He pointed out that, as per this order, the Government will retain charge over the assets only until the payment of the sale value is made in full, and that on completion of such payment, arrangements ought to have been made by the Director of Industries and Commerce to have it assigned in favour of his client. He added that, as is manifest from Ext.P16, his client had requested for assignment for the land as early as on 18.05.2007, after they had made payment of the entire land value and interest thereon; but that no action had been taken on it until now, which constrained them to prefer an application for NOC time to time, whenever they wanted to raise capital on the strength of the property in question. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that Ext.P15 be set aside and the competent respondent be directed to take immediate steps to assign the land in favour of his client, and also to grant them permission to raise funds on the same, through appropriate external funding procedures. 7. In response, Sri. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that, even going by 1969 Rules, which is relied upon by the petitioner, the Government will continue to hold complete title and ownership of the land till it is assigned in favour of the allottee. He submitted that, therefore, when the petitioner themselves admit that the land has not yet been assigned in their favour, the title to it continues with the Government and consequently, the 2020 Rules will apply, when any of their requests is to be now considered. He submitted that, therefore, when the petitioner themselves admit that the land has not yet been assigned in their favour, the title to it continues with the Government and consequently, the 2020 Rules will apply, when any of their requests is to be now considered. He argued that, as per this Government Order, an application for assignment will have to be submitted by the allottee to the General Manager and that it will be acceded to if all the requisite conditions are found complied with. He pointed out that, as per Rule 17 of the said Rules, the District Collector shall, thereafter, order assignment of the land, leading, under Rule 18 thereof, to the issue of the same by the Tahsildar in Form No. VII. He argued that none of these processes have been completed and therefore, that the petitioner will be bound by Clauses 34 and 35 of the said Rules, which make it clear that no transfer/change in Constitution will be permitted without the permission of the competent Authorities. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, predicating that Ext.P15 has been issued by the competent Authority noticing that the share Composition and Constitution of the Company have been altered to such extent, that it is now taken the nature of a new one, particularly because more than 51% of the share pattern has been modified. 8. The dialectical positions of the parties being so recorded, it is perspicuous that, on one hand, the petitioner asserts that they are the absolute owners of the property after the year 2007 or 2008, when they had completed payment of the land value, as ordered in Ext.P1 and as agreed to in Ext.P2 agreement. 9. On the other hand, the official respondents take the stand that since the petitioner did not apply for assignment of the land and since it is remaining only as an ‘allotted one’ the Government retains its first charge over it and therefore, that any permission, including in the nature of what has been now sought for by the petitioner, can be considered only under 2020 Rules. 10. Though, at the Bar, very fierce arguments and contra arguments were made by the parties as to which of the ‘Rules’ would apply in the case of the property in question, I must say that, even assuming that this Court finds the submissions of Sri. 10. Though, at the Bar, very fierce arguments and contra arguments were made by the parties as to which of the ‘Rules’ would apply in the case of the property in question, I must say that, even assuming that this Court finds the submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar that only the provisions of the 2020 Rules would apply, the petitioner still may be entitled to relief. 11. I will presently, record the reasons for my observation above. 12. As I have already indicated above, Ext.P1 order of allotment was issued in the year 1994, which was followed by Ext.P2 agreement, whereby, the petitioner was given liberty to pay off the land value in 10 equal annual installments. 13. It is undisputed that the value of the land, along with the contracted interest thereon, has been paid, which is apodictic from Exts.P3 and P4 communications of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, issued in the year 2008 and 2009. 14. Therefore, the only factual dispute between the parties is whether an application for assignment had been made by the petitioner after payment of the entire land value and this has some relevance to the submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar, because, according to him, it is for the petitioner to have made such an application and that if they have not done so, then the Government will continue to hold first charge over the property in question. 15. However, as is now luculent from Ext.16 - which is not contested - the petitioner appears to have made an application for assignment as early as on 18.05.2007, and they assert that no further action had been taken thereon until now. If this is true, then certainly, all the arguments of Sri. Santhosh Kumar, that the petitioner cannot seek any relief as sought for by them in this writ petition because they have not made an application for assignment prior to the coming into force of 2020 Rules, would have no legs to stand on. 16. That be so, even assuming that the Rules applicable are the 2020 Rules, the crucial question would be whether the petitioner can be put to any detriment for the reason that their share pattern has been altered subsequent to the payment of the full land value as per Exts.P1 and P2. 17. 16. That be so, even assuming that the Rules applicable are the 2020 Rules, the crucial question would be whether the petitioner can be put to any detriment for the reason that their share pattern has been altered subsequent to the payment of the full land value as per Exts.P1 and P2. 17. There is no doubt that, as per Clauses 16, 17 and 18 of the 2020 Rules, it is for the petitioner to have made an application for assignment to the General Manager of the District Industries Centre and for the District Collector to have then ordered it, leading to the issuance of ‘Patta’ by the Tahsildar. 18. However, what is relevant in these Rules is that it makes it incumbent upon the allottee to have made the full payment before making an application and therefore, it becomes limpid that what is really important is the actual payment of the land value and nothing else. 19. That being so said, even assuming that the petitioner had not made an application for assignment - taking it for the sake of argument alone - the question would be whether this will cause any detriment to them, particularly when they had paid the whole amount under the allotment. 20. To get a hang of this issue, one will certainly have to go through 1969 Rules, which makes it incumbent upon the Director of Industries and Commerce to have had the land assigned in favour of allottee through the Authorities concerned, on the entire payment of the land value being completed. This is indisputable from Clause 28 thereof, which is then followed by Clause 30, which says that the Government shall have the complete title and ownership till it is assigned in favour of the allottee. 21. Therefore, going by these Rules, prima-facie, the obligation is on the Director of Industries and Commerce to have effected the assignment in favour of the allottee, on payment of the entire land value and it is rather doubtful if any detriment can be caused to the petitioner, merely because the said Authority did not act in terms of law. 22. Therefore, going by these Rules, prima-facie, the obligation is on the Director of Industries and Commerce to have effected the assignment in favour of the allottee, on payment of the entire land value and it is rather doubtful if any detriment can be caused to the petitioner, merely because the said Authority did not act in terms of law. 22. In any event of the matter, I do not think that it will be now necessary for this Court to go into this issue in any greater detail, because it is on record that, through Ext.P16, the petitioner has made an application for assignment as early as on 18.05.2007, which was much before the 2020 Rules came into force. Therefore, the arguments of Sri. Santhosh Kumar that the failure of the petitioner to make an application for assignment prior to 2020 Rules would strike at the root of their request, cannot appeal to me because such an application is uncontested to have been made and is uncontested to be still pending. 23. Moving on, when one examines the 2020 Rules, the issues relating to transfer and change of Constitution of a Company is governed by Clauses 34 and 35 thereof, which, for the purpose of easy reading, are extracted as under: “34. Lock in period: (i) There will be a lock in period imposed such that no transfer/change in constitution will be allowed for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production. This will be applicable to subsequent changes also. (ii) Lock in period in respect of change of product/activity shall be six months only. 35. Transfer and Change of Possession: For the above purpose, transfer of allotted property will mean transfer of allotted property to a new legal entity including merger, acquisition and amalgamation of the companies. It will also include transfer of allotted property by an individual/firm/company or any other allottee as the case may be. Proposal for transfer of allotted property will be considered only after a period of three years from the date of commencement of commercial production by the original allottee. This lock in period is applicable for subsequent transfer also. The following cases shall be deemed as transfer: (i) In the case of proprietorship firm to partnership firm causing change in the share of the original allottee falls below 51%. This lock in period is applicable for subsequent transfer also. The following cases shall be deemed as transfer: (i) In the case of proprietorship firm to partnership firm causing change in the share of the original allottee falls below 51%. (ii) To a person other than the legal heirs of the deceased allottee, in the case of sole proprietorship. (iii) In the case of partnership firms and limited liability partnership firms, if the shares of the original partner/partners falls below 51%. In the case of private limited company. (a) The major share (51% or above) gets transferred through exit of the shareholders, at the time of allotment. (b) By induction of new share holders the share of the original share holders is diluted to below 51%.” 24. As is limpid from the afore provisions, the 2020 Rules say that there will be a ‘lock-in period’ of three years, before making a transfer/change in Constitution, from the date of commencement of production. There is no mention even of the payment of land value, but the rigour is confined to from the date on which the production is commenced by the allottee. 25. In the case at hand, even the official respondents do not have a contention that the petitioner had not commenced their production after Exts.P1 and P2 order of allotment and agreement respectively. 26. In fact, I asked Sri. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, whether he has an argument that, even as on today, this condition has not been complied with by the allottee, but his specific answer was to the negative. His submission was that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had commenced production immediately after Exts.P1 and P2, their request for either assignment or for NOC to obtain a financial facility on the strength of the property, will be governed by Clauses 34 and 35 and that since their share pattern has now been admittedly changed, the said request cannot be acceded to. 27. I must say that this Court cannot grant imprimatur to the afore submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar because, as I have already seen above and as is, ex facie clear from the afore extracted provisions, the 'lock-in period' is only for three years from the date of 'commencement of production'. 27. I must say that this Court cannot grant imprimatur to the afore submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar because, as I have already seen above and as is, ex facie clear from the afore extracted provisions, the 'lock-in period' is only for three years from the date of 'commencement of production'. Since there is no case that the petitioner had not commenced production immediately after Exts.P1 and P2, the provisions of 'lock-in', even going by the 2020 Rules cannot apply to them; and therefore, Ext.P15, as also the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents relating to the change of the shareholding of the petitioner, will have no bearing on the facts of this case; and this is more so because, they are seen to have made an application for assignment as early as in the year 2007. 28. Ineluctably, therefore, when the petitioner has complied with every condition, as is required under both the 1969 Rules, as also the 2020 Rules, by commencing their production within the time frame enumerated and in making an application for assignment immediately after they completed their payment schedule under the “Hire Purchase” agreement, I cannot see how the respondents can now issue an order like Ext.P15, and then support it through the various averments in the counter affidavit, saying that the present request of the petitioner will have to be seen as a transfer/change in Constitution. 29. This is more so because, even if the petitioner sought for a ‘transfer’ or ‘change’ of their Constitution, it would be of no avail to the respondents to deny them the same because, as already seen above, Clauses 34 and 35 of the 2020 Rules, provide for a ‘lock-in’ only for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production. Since the petitioner has already paid off the entire land value, admittedly in the year 2007 or 2008 and since they have made an application for assignment immediately thereafter, I fail to fathom how the official respondents can still continue their stand that they are not entitled to any benefit, either for assignment of the land or for the grant of NOC, as prayed for by them. 30. 30. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition with the following directions: (a) If Ext.P16 application for assignment of land dated 18.05.2007 is still pending, without any action being taken thereon by the competent Authorities, they are directed to do so as per the 1969 Rules r/w 2020 Rules and to complete processes for the same, leading to the issue of ‘Patta’ to the petitioner, without any avoidable delay, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) Until such time as the afore directions are complied with, the competent respondent will issue an apposite NOC to the petitioner, as per their request, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on compliance of every other requirement under the “1969 Rules” and “2020 Rules.” (c) As a corollary to the afore directions, Ext.P15 order will stand set aside. 31. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, intervened to say that, if there are any other legally recoverable dues from the petitioner, liberty may also be left to the competent Authorities to do so as per law. 32. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, however, opposed this plea saying that no such demand has ever been made and that, going by either of the Rules aforementioned, only that additional amount, if any, towards infrastructural development can be claimed and not as additional value of the land at the whims and fancies of the competent Authorities. 33. I must say that I find great force in the afore submissions of Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan - learned Senior Counsel, because, going by the either of the Rules, the competent Authorities cannot claim any further amount as land value, except which is legally permissible and which is part of either development or addition of infrastructural facilities for the same, at the relevant time. 34. With the afore clarification, I dispose of this writ petition in terms of the directions above.