The court upheld the resumption of industrial land due to the failure of the allottee to operate business while recognizing the need for orderly reallocation based on seniority among competing claimants.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. Since a decision in WP(C) No. 14132 of 2021 will have a direct bearing on the decisions in the other writ petitions, I will consider WP(C) No. 14132 of 2021 first.

2. In WP(C) No.14132 of 2021, the petitioner seeks to challenge Exts.P1 and P8. The contention of the petitioner is that he being a mechanical engineering graduate and the 1st respondent Government as per Government order dated 03.06.1971 decided to extend assistance to unemployed engineers in starting industrial units in industrial estates, the petitioner applied for allotment of land and was allotted 50 cents as Plot No.36, and after the survey was conducted, the property in possession of the petitioner was found to be 43 cents. Petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of tin containers for supply to the cashew exporters, and business was going smoothly. During 2017, due to a shortage of raw cashews for the cashew industry, there was an absolute slump in cashew manufacturing, and such industries slowly ceased operations. Consequently, the demand for the petitioner’s goods was substantially reduced, and the business ultimately came to a grinding halt. Later, the petitioner requested permission to run the business as a partnership with his son with a new product, by converting it into a new activity, i.e. body building unit for heavy vehicles and buses. There was no response to the said request made by the petitioner. Then in March 2020, Covid-19 pandemic struck, causing a devastating impact not only on the business, but also on the petitioner, who is aged. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent, and a reply was given stating that the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the unit will be submitted in due course. Thereafter, there was no response. While so, Ext.P1 order was issued, whereby the 3rd respondent ordered to resume the petitioner’s plot No.36. Thereupon, Ext.P2 representation was filed before the 1st respondent and challenging Ext.P1, WP(C) No.3192 of 2021 was filed, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the appeal was heard after considering Ext.P6 written submission and the same was rejected as per Ext.P8 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. Petitioner submits that there is no provision in the agreement or in terms of allotment to take possession of the petitioner’s plot, and further that resumption can be taken only if the plot is kept idle, but in the present case the petitioner has undertaken manufacturing activity and only due to a slump in the exporting of cashew products, the petitioner could not function the unit.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that 50 cents of land was allotted to the petitioner in Plot No.36 as per Ext.R3(a), and Ext.R3(b) agreement was executed. Though the petitioner applied for availing patta, the application is not processed because of the non- submission of the prescribed application form, connected documents and fees. It was found that the unit could not utilise the land for the initial purpose and later carried out an unauthorised activity. Thereupon, Ext.R3(c) show cause notice was issued, and later inspection was conducted through the Assistant District Industries