Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Harpreet Singh Brar, JJ.
M/s. Drs Plastchem Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 7715 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R.S.Khosla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms.Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that defaulting allottees cannot deny the validity of the binding effect of the terms and conditions of re-allotment after enjoying its benefits for a significant period, and equities cannot emerge in their favor without compelling circumstances for non-payment.

Headnote:
Certiorari - Resumption of Plot - Allotment Letter Clause - [Section 8, Phase IV, IMT Manesar] - [Clause in Allotment Letter: Any additional price of the plot/shed as a consequence of enhancement in compensation awarded by the court(s) shall be payable by the allottee in lump sum within 30 days from the date of demand notice failing which a penal interest @ 18% p.a. shall be charged from the date of notice. In the event of non-payment of such enhanced compensation within a period of three months of the notice, the plot shall be liable to be resumed.] - The court found that the resumption order was factually correct and legally justified as the petitioner had defaulted on the payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The court also cited the doctrine of estoppel by election and held that the petitioner cannot deny the validity of the binding effect of the terms and conditions of re-allotment after enjoying its benefits for 7 years. The court further emphasized that equities cannot emerge in favor of defaulting allottees without compelling circumstances for non-payment. Additionally, the court referred to previous judgments to support the decision of resumption as a last resort for ranked defaulters. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the resumption order of a plot due to default in payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges. The petitioner claimed that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal. The respondents argued that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter and had deliberately chosen not to pay the enhanced compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the resumption order to be factually correct and legally justified, as the petitioner had defaulted on the payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that equities cannot emerge in favor of defaulting allottees without compelling circumstances for non-payment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the resumption order, the opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner, and the default in payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resumption order was justified based on the petitioner's default in payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The court also emphasized the doctrine of estoppel by election, stating that the petitioner cannot deny the validity of the binding effect of the terms and conditions of re-allotment after enjoying its benefits for 7 years.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the resumption order and emphasizing that equities cannot emerge in favor of defaulting allottees without compelling circumstances for non-payment.

JUDGMENT

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court praying for :-

Issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing of the resumption order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 as well as quashing of order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-11) and further prayed for directing the respondents to restore the resumed site in favour of the petitioner

2. The plot bearing No. 483, Sector 8, Phase IV, IMT Manesar measuring 1012.50 square meters was allotted to the original allottee M/s Sunbeam Construction Pvt. Ltd. for setting up fabrication workshop. The Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) was issued on 13.12.2004 and the possession of the plot was offered on 01.04.2006. Thereafter, the plot was re-allotted to the present petitioner on 01.07.2011. The plot was resumed by the Estate Manager, HSIIDC, Manesar on 13.03.2020 vide letter bearing memo No. 3993 on the ground of default in payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges. In this regard, show cause notices dated 08.07.2015, 10.11.2015, 23.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 were issued to the petitioner. But as per the record, no reply was given by the petitioner. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner on 30.07.2019, 11.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 but no one appeared at the time of hearing on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the plot was resumed on 13.03.2020 on account of non-payment of the enhanced compensation. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of resumption dated 13.03.2020 was also dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-11) by the Appellate Authority.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the resumption order (Annexure P-3) was passed by respondent No.3 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in a very cursory manner, without dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner in the appeal (Annexure P-4). He further relies upon State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, 1967 AIR 1269 to contend that the impugned resumption order and the show cause notice dated 09.09.2019 mentioned in the resumption order was never served upon the petitioner. As such, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner had not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned resumption order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Nisha vs. State of Punjab 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 40, to contend that without furnishing the details of enhancement to the petitioner the impugned orders ought not to have been passed. As such, the resumption order is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court Ajay Singh Mann v State of Haryana and Ors, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 474, Kalyan Singh and another v Estate Officer Chandigarh and others, 2014(5) RCR (Civil) 600, Smt. Fana alias Maina Devi and others vs. The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 887.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 put in appearance on having been served with the advance copy of the writ petition asserts that the petitioner, had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 14038 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2022 which is reproduced as under:-

' Consequently, while deciding any appeal filed by the petitioner before her/him, the Appellate Authority would duly go into the issue of whether or not the amount of enhanced compensation demanded from the petitioner is actually as per law and would give an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case qua the amount that actually should be paid; and thereafter would deal with the matter in detail on that issue also (if any appeal is filed by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 08.07.2022 passed in CWP No. 14304 of 2022).

In compliance of the above orders