9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stimated 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 authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of receipt of the missing documents." Not being satisfied with the reply received, the allottee was offered an opportunity of personal hearing vide Memo dated 06.01.2004. The said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) appeared and gave a written reply. On perusal of the reply dated 14.11.2003 and report submitted by the Junior Engineer of HUDA, the Estate Officer, HUDA held that the allottee failed to commence the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and vide order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting 10 per cent of the consideration money. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of resumption of plot, Satyawati wife of Rabinder Nath through her GPA Rakesh Sarna filed appeal Under Section 17(5) of the HUDA Act, 1977 before the appellate authority-Administrator, HUDA. During the pendency of said appeal, the application was moved on 07.03.2006 to the effect that the Appellant Satyawati had expired on 03.10.2005 leaving behind a will dated 02.09.2005 in favour of her four children namely the Appellants. The said application was allowed and the Appellants were impleaded as parties. The appeal was dismissed by Respondent No. 3-Administrator, HUDA vide order dated 11.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of allotment of the plot. 8. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Gautam Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the impugned order and materials placed on record. 9. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that the Appellants-legal heirs of the allottee Rabinder Nath, MD of M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills were unsuccessful before the Estate Officer, Appellate authority and the Revisional authority and also before the High Court. All the authorities as well as the High Court recorded concurrent findings that the allottee has not commenced production for twenty long years from the date of allotment and handing over of possession till passing of the order of resumption in 2004 and also building was not constructed and there was breach of terms and conditions of the allotment and such non-commencement of production defeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial plots. The question falling for consideration is whether such concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and also by the High Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther condition of transfer the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Appellants have admittedly not commenced the industrial production on the plot for twenty long years after allotment and delivery of possession. The Appellants seem to have woken upon only after issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Evidently, there is breach of condition of allotment of the plot. 11. Contention of the Appellants is that Rabinder Nath (NRI), MD of M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills who was allotted the plot, was detected with cancer and died of cancer in 1987. Satyawati Devi w/o Rabinder Nath who became the sole proprietor of M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills also remained disabled and she was also detected with cancer in 2004 and she was getting disability allowance from 1992 to 2003 as per the documents on record. It is therefore, the submission of the Appellants that legal representatives could not do anything or take any constructive action from 1985 till 2003 despite the fact that they have constructed a building without a completion certificate. It is the contention of the Appellants that the default was not wilful and extreme step of resumpt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 passed by the Estate Officer wherein it is stated that the "plot and building constructed thereon....." are resumed in exercise of powers vested Under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. The learned senior Counsel submitted that buildings were actually constructed by the allottee and the inconsistency between show cause notice and the order of Revisional authority was not kept in view by the High Court. 15. As discussed earlier, the industrial plots were allotted at a very reasonable rates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentives to the allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growth and economic development of the State and generation of adequate employment opportunities. These allotments are not only governed by the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy of the State. Construction of building and commencement of production are the integral part of the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. The appellate and Revisional authority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted for the observation that the buildings were not constructed for twenty long yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete construction within the stipulated time as per condition No. 18 and commence production for a period of almost twenty years despite there being a clear stipulation in the allotment letter requiring them to complete construction within a period of two years. They have also failed to explain sufficient cause for this inordinate delay occasioned by them. As rightly held by the authorities, the allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial plot. 17. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellants has also drawn our attention to the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in CWP No. 15672 of 2008 Anup Chauhan v. The Financial Commissioner & Secretary and Ors. wherein the High Court directed the Respondent Authority to consider the claim of the Petitioner. However, the facts of the case in hand have to be distinguished from those of the Anup Chauhan case. In the writ petition, the Petitioners had applied for an extension till 2006 to complete the project and had also paid the extension fee for the same and the Estate Officer had passed an order on 30.11.2004 resuming the plot and in such facts, the High Court set aside the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Management Procedure (EMP), 2011 and the subsequent EMP, 2015 as per which, industrial plot is to be allotted or disposed of only as per Regulation/policy. It was submitted that industrial plots are disposed of as per EMP and in this regard, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the counter filed as to the EMP governing the allotment of the industrial plots including the invitation of applications through advertisements. When allotment of industrial plots is thus governed by EMP, the prayer of the Appellants that they are ready to pay the current market rate for the industrial plot cannot be considered. 21. 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 ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
