JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 10.3.2008, as contained in Annexure-1 to the petition and for the direction to the respondent not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land in the license agreement dated 30.4.1992, as contained in Annexure-4 to the petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner as argued by his counsel that the respondent-Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") had, for the purpose of encouraging industrialization in the backward District of Hardoi, developed an industrial area, in which the petitioner company with an intent to establish a chemical industry applied for allotment of an industrial plot for the said purpose. Respondent-Corporation allotted Plot No. B-9-10-11 & D-11 to the petitioner company on 17.7.1991. Although the petitioner had applied for 72 acres of land but final area of 119416.30 sq. mt. was allotted, for which a total amount of Rs. 14,76,601.25 was deposited by the petitioner in lump-sum before the respondent. Pursuant to such deposit, the lease agreement was executed on 30.4.1992. Subsequently, the Chemical Industry which the petitioner intended to set up could not established because of ban on import of finished goods. Later on, the Export Import Policy of the Government of India was liberalized and the Central Government permitted such import of finished products which resulted in the steep fall in the prices of the product. Thus, the industry which the petitioner was going to set up became unviable.

4. The petitioner informed the respondent-Corporation that the industry which was initially intended to be set up could not be set up because of various reasons and the project had become unviable. They had communicated the decision to put up some other project in the field of horticulture which would require some time.

The petitioner applied for extension which was given. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a notice by the respondent-Corporation in 2005 to show cause as to why its allotment may not be cancelled as the petitioner had not complied with the terms of the agreement and had not utilized the industrial plot for the purpose for which it was allotted to it. The petitioner immediately replied to the said notice and communicated that it was now intending to set up a Medicinal and Aromatic Crop based industry and the necessary soil testing, etc. would be carried out which would need sometime. Accordingly, a further time of three years may be permitted to it for utilizing the land as per the new proposal made by it. The petitioner made all efforts to set up the new industry but the respondent by the impugned order dated 10.3.2008 informed the petitioner that it had cancelled the allotment made in their favour on 17.7.1991 and also the license agreement dated 30.4.1992 as the petitioner had failed to comply with stipulation under Clause 4(e) of the agreement. It was also informed by the said impugned order that the Junior Engineer posted at the site has been directed to re-enter in the plot and submit the re-entry memo within a week.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner had made an application for extension of time in 2005 in response to show cause notice issued to it, it was under the bonafide impression that respondent-Corporation would consider and decide such application for extension of time and the Corporation would follow the due process for re-enter. Even thereafter, the impugned order was passed. However, the employees of the Corporation came on the site on 31.3.2008 and informed the petitioner that it should immediately dismantle the barbed wire fencing and harvest its crop so that the possession of the plot may be taken by the respondent-