2018 (10) TMI 2019 - SC - Indian Laws

Resumption of the Industrial Plot No. 306 Industrial Area Phase-II Panchkula allotted to M/s. Shiva Dairy Oil Mills - whether such concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and also by the High Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference by this Court? - HELD THAT - The allotment of Industrial Plot No. 306 Industrial Area Phase-II Panchkula in 1984 to Rabinder Nath was in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s. Shiva Dairy Oil Mills. The plot was thus allotted to the partnership firm. The Appellants have not been able to show as to how they stepped into the shoes of the partnership firm apart from the mere fact that they are legal heirs of Rabinder Nath. As discussed earlier at the time of making application for allotment of industrial plot the applicant has to clearly disclose all the facts regarding the type of industry to be started licence if necessary under law project report estimated cost of project details regarding time required in completing the project details of employees required source of fund etc. The project so submitted is then approved by the competent authority after considering its viability. The applicants are then issued letter of intent/provisional allotment letter with condition to complete the other formalities within the stipulated period of time and after completion of formalities regular allotment letter is issued in favour of the applicant. The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violation of the procedure. Clause (11) of the terms and conditions of allotment clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions of transfer the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act 1977 - The order of resumption of the plot is as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional authority. The Appellants having failed before all the forums including the High Court and also the Revisional authority there are no serious infirmity or illegality in the order of resumption of the plot and therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the industrial plot allotment.
2. Justification for the resumption of the plot by the authorities.
3. Validity of the legal heirs' claim to the plot.
4. Consideration of appellants' readiness to pay the current market value for the plot.
5. Applicability of precedents cited by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the industrial plot allotment:
The industrial plot was allotted to Rabinder Nath, MD of M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills, with specific conditions, including the completion of construction within two years and commencement of production. The allottee failed to adhere to these conditions, leading to a Show Cause Notice and subsequent resumption of the plot by HUDA. Despite multiple opportunities, the allottee did not commence production or complete the construction, breaching the terms of the allotment.

2. Justification for the resumption of the plot by the authorities:
The authorities, including the Estate Officer, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority, consistently found that the allottee did not start production for twenty years, defeating the purpose of the industrial plot allotment aimed at economic development and employment generation. The High Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the plot was allotted at a concessional rate to encourage industrialization, and the non-commencement of production defeated this purpose.

3. Validity of the legal heirs' claim to the plot:
The appellants, legal heirs of Rabinder Nath, could not demonstrate how they legally stepped into the shoes of the partnership firm, M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills. The plot was allotted to the firm, and the appellants' claim was not substantiated with adequate legal backing. The authorities and the High Court found no merit in the appellants' claim, as they failed to comply with the allotment conditions for an extended period.

4. Consideration of appellants' readiness to pay the current market value for the plot:
The appellants expressed willingness to pay the current market value for the plot. However, HUDA's policy, governed by the Estate Management Procedure (EMP), 2011 and 2015, does not allow for such allotments based on current market rates. The Court noted that industrial plots are disposed of as per EMP regulations, and the appellants' offer could not be entertained under the existing policy framework.

5. Applicability of precedents cited by the appellants:
The appellants cited several cases to argue against the resumption of the plot. However, the Court distinguished these cases based on their facts. In cases like Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh, the default was related to payment of instalments, not non-compliance with construction and production terms. The Court reiterated that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, and the appellants could not claim relief based on other cases where resumption orders were quashed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no infirmity or illegality in the resumption order and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and the High Court. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the appellants' failure to comply with the allotment conditions for twenty years justified the resumption of the plot. The Court also noted that the appellants' offer to pay the current market value could not be considered under the existing EMP regulations.