Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN PALLI, VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Naveen Kumar Batra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arun Palli, J.
In brief, the case set out in the petition is that vide letter of allotment dated 12.04.2001 (P-1), the petitioner was allotted an Industrial Plot No.199, Sector-25, Part-II, Panipat, measuring 300 square meter. The tentative price of the subject site/plot was Rs.2,70,000/-. And, 10% of which, i.e. Rs.27,000/-, was remitted by the petitioner, along with an application, as earnest money. He was required to deposit a further sum of Rs.40,500/-, within 30 days, which constituted 25% of the total tentative price. The balance 75% of the consideration could be remitted in five half yearly installments. In terms of clause 17 (i) of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to start construction of a building within a period of one year, as per the approved building plans, from the issuance of letter of allotment/offer of possession. However, it was only on 14.09.2005, he was delivered the actual physical possession of the subject site/plot. And, soon thereafter, he submitted the building plans for approvals/sanctions. Which were approved/sanctioned on 22.12.2005. Upon which, he started constructing the site. For he completed construction up to the plinth
The court established that procedural errors and good faith efforts to fulfill conditions can mitigate penalties in industrial allotment cases.
Resumption of industrial plot for non-fulfilment of terms and conditions of allotment is justified.
The binding nature of contract terms and conditions, and the voluntary acceptance of the contract by the petitioner.
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 fo....
Resumption of property must be justified with clear reasoning and due process; it should be a last resort after all recovery efforts fail.
The revisional authority cannot restore a booth site after resumption proceedings have become final, particularly in cases involving chronic defaulters.
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
