Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Palli, Vikram Aggarwal
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural errors by the authority affect resumption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on production commencement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's view on good faith and authority delays. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Arun Palli, J.
A brief narration of facts that have led the parties to the current stage would be imperative.
2. Pursuant to a re-allotment letter dated 21.01.2004 (P-1), Arun Kumar Goyal-respondent No.2 (allottee) was allotted an industrial plot No. 118, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula. And per condition No.21 thereof, production, in terms of the approved project, was required to be commenced within six months. For the survey branch reported that the allottee had failed to commission the unit, he was served with a notice of resumption dated 02.12.2004, under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act , 1977 (the Act). And eventually, for neither the site was fully constructed nor the production commenced, vide order dated 30.01.2006 (P-5), the Estate Officer, under Section 17(4) of the Act, ordered resumption of site and the building constructed thereon. Further,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
