A provisional allotment letter for an industrial plot does not confer a final, vested, or enforceable right upon an allottee; consequently, where an allottee rejects the initial offer and requests an alternative, a subsequent allotment is deemed to be in substitution of the first.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below. The appeal is primarily founded on the contention that the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Gurgaon and the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, are contrary to law, founded upon a manifest misappreciation of evidence, and have occasioned substantial prejudice to the appellant, thereby warranting the intervention of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the said provision.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. The salient and material facts forming the foundation of the present proceedings, which are essential for an informed adjudication of the issues, are briefly narrated as follows:-

“M/s Haryana Chemicals, the plaintiff–appellant, has been engaged in the manufacture of inks, polishing compositions, and anodised lithographic aluminium plates at Plot No.60, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon since 5 May 1984. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by defendant No.1, the appellant applied on 25 June 1985 for an additional plot to expand its manufacturing activities and, as directed, deposited ₹ 27,200 on 25 August 1987 towards 10% of the cost of a 2000 sq. meter plot. Despite the deposit, no allotment was made for a considerable period. Later, by letter dated 18 December 1987, the appellant was asked to apply afresh to the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC), whereupon it submitted a fresh application with a total deposit of ₹ 35,000.

Subsequently, vide provisional allotment letter dated 6 June 1989, the appellant was allotted Plot No.49 measuring 1000 sq. meters in Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, and duly complied with all conditions. On a further request, the defendants allotted another plot, No.136 in Phase-I, Gurgaon, vide letter dated 25 July 1989, which the appellant accepted through communication dated 30 July 1989. The appellant alleges that officials of the defendants demanded ₹ 1,00,000 as illegal gratification and, upon refusal, threatened to cancel the allotment of Plot No.49. Thereafter, vide letter dated 9 November 1989, the defendants stated that Plot No.136, Phase-I was allotted in lieu of Plot No.49, though no such condition existed earlier. The appellant contends that the said action is arbitrary, illegal, and without authority, and that both allotments ought to subsist. Aggrieved by the cancellation of Plot No.49, the appellant instituted the present suit seeking declaration, injunction, and restoration of both plots.”

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed joint written statements stating therein that although Plot No.49, Phase-IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon had initially been offered to the plaintiff–appellant vide provisional allotment letter dated 6 June 1989, the said allotment was subsequently modified at the instance of the plaintiff. It was asserted that upon the plaintiff’s representation that Plot No.49 was situated at a considerable distance from its existing industrial unit at Plot No.60, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, the competent authority, as a matter of administrative convenience and to accommodate the request, allotted Plot No.136, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon in substitution of Plot No.49. The defendants categorically