IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Date of decision: 24.01.2025 R.K. SHARMA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

..Appellant Versus HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. Factual background:-

1.1 The correctness of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing the plaintiff’s (appellant’s) suit, is assailed in this regular second appeal. This is plaintiff’s sixth round of litigation in order to continue in possession of the property owned by instrumentality of the State.

1.2 In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

1.3 Sh. R.K. Sharma, the plaintiff was allotted plot No.227, Phase-IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, for establishing industrial project to manufacture auto parts subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. An agreement on 03.05.1988 was executed between Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (in short ‘HSIDC’) and the plaintiff, specifying the terms and conditions of the allotment, which was followed by delivery of possession on 11.05.988. As per terms and conditions of the allotment, the plaintiff failed to start construction within six months and complete the same within 1 and ½ (half) year and start manufacturing within three years of allotment, hence, his plot was resumed. The property vested in the HSIDC, the respondent herein. The petitioner challenged the correctness of order of resumption passed by HSIDC on 12.04.1991. In Civil Writ Petition No.9444-1991, which was disposed of on 12.12.1991, with the following observations:-

“if the allottee pays extension fees and restoration fees within 3 months from today i.e., 12.04.1991, the plot would be restored to him and he would be at liberty to complete the construction within 1 year from the date of restoration of the plot. If no construction is made by him within the said period, the Corporation thereafter would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.”

1.4 However, the plaintiff failed to comply with the aforesaid order and filed miscellaneous application for modification of the order, which was disposed of on 30.07.1992 with the following order:-

“We make it clear that this Court earlier order dated December 12.1991 dues not put any embargo on the rights of the respondents to charge any amount found due from the petitioner in accordance with law. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this application is that the respondents are not entitled to charge enhanced amount as demanded and the respondents have not adjusted the amount. paid by him. All this happened subsequent to the passing of the said order. If the petitioner has got any grievance against the demand of enhanced amount, he is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. There is no ambiguity in the impugned order, rather it has not been complied with. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents states that in the eventuality of the petitioner paying extension and restoration charges, though by later policy the extension charges were changed to a bank guarantee, the plot in question will be restored to him subject to the right of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law if any amount is found due from the petitioner or to pass any appropriate as a consequent of non-payment of any such amount.

With these observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.”

1.5 During the pendency of writ petition, the plaintiff agreed to sell his rights in plot No.227, in favour of defendant No.3 vide agreement to se