9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of allotment was subject to the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations applicable thereunder as amended from time to time and also the Industrial Policy of the State of Haryana. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, specifically Condition No. 18, required the allottee to complete the construction over the allotted plot within two years of the date of offer of possession after completing the necessary formalities governing the construction of the building; otherwise the plot was liable to be resumed and the whole or any part of the money in respect of the same is liable to be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977. 4. Since the allottee Rabinder Nath (NRI) did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment and did not commence the production within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 was issued to the allottee Under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. One Rakesh Sarna claiming to be the Power of Attorney sent the reply dated 14.11.2003 saying that the original documents are missing and requested for issuance of duplicate copies. In the said reply, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production for twenty years from the date of allotment and delivery of possession; * That the revision preferred by the Appellants is barred by limitation having been filed after a delay of one year and three months and that too without any application for condonation of delay; and * That the plot was allotted to M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills and the Appellants could not show how they stepped into the shoes of the firm and it was an act of the Appellants to appropriate the plot to the exclusion of the legal heirs of the partners of the firm. 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the Appellants filed Writ Petition (C) No. 19256 of 2014 before the High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.09.2014. The High Court noted that as rightly observed by the Revisional authority, the plot was allotted at a concessional price with the object of commencing production or industrial activities within a reasonable time which would generate employment for the unemployed youth and also generate revenue in the form of leviable taxes for the public exchequer besides adding to the economic development of the nation. The High Court held that the failure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial plot in question to Rabinder Nath as MD of M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills was subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment. As per Clause (18) of the allotment, the allottee has to complete the construction within two years from the date of offer of possession. Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of breach of any other condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. Clauses 18 and 11 read as under: 18. You will have to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession, after petting the plans of the proposed building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the Regulations governing the erection of buildings. This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if he is satisfied the non-construction of the building was due to reasons beyond your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed and the whole or part of the money paid if any, in respect of it forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. You shall not erect any building or make any alteration/addition without prior permission of the Estate Officer, no fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at balanced regional development and with a view to generate adequate employment. The allotment of industrial plot was at concessional rate and was subject to terms and conditions and the allottee was bound to comply with the terms and conditions. In such kind of allotment of industrial plots, based on government industrial policy with twin objectives of economic development and generation of adequate employment, sympathy cannot be the ground for considering the case of the Appellants as to their non-compliance of the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty long years after the allotment. 14. The learned senior Counsel for the Appellants contended that the opportunity of personal hearing rendered was a mere formality and no opportunity was given to the Appellants for commencement of production. Contention of the Appellants is that though the show cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 and the Resumption order dated 25.02.2004 were passed on the ground of non-commencement of production; the appellate and revisional authority as well as the impugned order passed by the High Court upheld the resumption of the plot on altogether distinct premise of non-construction of the buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellants placed reliance upon Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 130 wherein it was inter alia held that one of the questions which the Estate Officer must always pose is as to whether the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture has been taken recourse to as a last resort. It was submitted that the present case is not the one where the extreme step of resumption of plot ought to have been resorted to. The facts of the said case are distinguished from the case in hand. In Teri Oat Estates case, the Appellants thereon were merely to pay the balance amount of 75 per cent of the consideration amount in instalments. The Appellants, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, not only paid the entire amount but also paid ground rent and further paid 10 per cent penalty on the forfeited amount. Teri Oat Estates case, thus related to the default in payment of instalments of premium and interest thereon and ground rent in terms of allotment; but default was found to be not wilful and dishonest. In such facts and circumstances of the said case, this Court held that the authorities were not justified in resorting to the extreme step of resumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the Petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi M(2003) 3 SCC 548, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. M(2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24, Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422) 20. This Court issued notice (vide order dated 07.01.2015) on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the Appellants that they are agreeable to pay the present market value of the plot in question. The learned senior Counsel Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants are ready to pay the present market value of the plot in question. Refuting the said submission, the learned Counsel for HUDA has submitted that at present, there is no HUDA policy to allot the resumed industrial plot on the current market price. It was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
