IMPORTANT POINTS
Allotted industrial plot is liable to be resumed if the terms and conditions of the allotment letter are breached.
Article 14 is a positive concept, cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner.
When a plot is allotted to a partnership firm, person seeking revocation of resumption order must establish his credentials vis-à-vis the Firm.
Order of resumption passed in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the allotment order cannot be interfered with.

Headnote:(a) HUDA Act, 1977 – Section 17 – Resumption of allotted property – Appellants losing before all forums – All forums recording concurrent findings – Neither constructing buildings not starting production only within stipulate period nut even after twenty years – Not explaining the delay – Defeating the very purpose of allotment of such industrial plot. (Para 9, 16),
       (2004) 2 SCC 130; CWP No.15672 of 2008 (P&H); RSA No.908 of 2012 – Distinguished
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Article 14 is a positive concept – Cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner. (Para 19)
       (2011) 3 SCC 436 – Relied upon
       (c) HUDA Act, 1977 – Section 17 – Appellants praying to allot them the resumed plot for which they are ready to pay market price – HUDA not having any such policy – Presently allotment governed by Estate Management Procedure (EMP), 2011 – Prayer declined. (Para 20)
       (d) HUDA Act, 1977 – Section 17 – Industrial plot allotted to a partnership firm – Appellants legal heirs of the deceased MD of the firm – Not establishing their right to the Firm/plot – Prayer for cancellation of resumption order declined. (Para 21)
       (e) HUDA Act, 1977 – Section 17 – Order of resumption – Authorities acting in conformity with rules and regulation – Resuming the land as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order – Cannot be interfered with. (Para 22)
       Facts of the case:
       Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula was allotted to Rabinder Nath, in his capacity as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills and the possession of the said plot was given on 19.09.1984.
       Since the allottee Rabinder Nath (NRI) did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment and did not commence the production within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 was issued to the allottee. The allottee was offered an opportunity of personal hearing. Rakesh Sarna (GPA) appeared and gave a written reply. On perusal of the reply dated 14.11.2003 and report submitted by the Junior Engineer of HUDA, the Estate Officer, HUDA held that the allottee failed to commence the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and vide order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting 10 per cent of the consideration money.
       Being aggrieved by the order of resumption of plot, Satyawati wife of Rabinder Nath through her GPA Rakesh Sarna filed appeal before the appellate authority-Administrator, HUDA. The appellants, sons of Satyawati were impleaded as parties. The appeal was dismissed.
       The appellants filed Writ Petition (C) before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
       Finding of the Court:
       HUDA rightly resumed the plot.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.19256 of 2014 in and by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants thereby upholding the orders of the Authorities resuming the Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula allotted to M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills.

3. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of this appeal are that Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula was allotted to Rabinder Nath, in his capacity as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills vide Memo No.21015 dated 25.07.1984 and the possession of the said plot was given on 19.09.1984. Letter of allotment was subject to the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations applicable thereunder as amended from time to time and also the Industrial Policy of the State of Haryana. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, specifically Condition No.18, required the allottee to complete the construction over the allotted plot within two years of the date of offer of possession after completing the necessary formalities governing the construction of the building; otherwise the plot was liable to be resumed and the whole or any part of the money in respect of the same is liable to be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977.

4. Since the allottee Rabinder Nath (NRI) did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment and did not commence the production within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 was issued to the allottee under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. One Rakesh Sarna claiming to be the Power of Attorney sent the reply dated 14.11.2003 saying that the original documents are missing and requested for issuance of duplicate copies. In the said reply, the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) stated that they would “construct the building within six months from the date of receipt of the missing documents.” Not being satisfied with the reply received, the allottee was offered an opportunity of personal hearing vide Memo dated 06.01.2004. The said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) appeared and gave a written reply. On perusal of the reply dated 14.11.2003 and report submitted by the Junior Engineer of HUDA, the Estate Officer, HUDA held that the allottee failed to commence the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and vide order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting 10 per cent of the consideration money.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of resumption of plot, Satyawati wife of Rabinder Nath through her GPA Rakesh Sarna filed appeal under Section 17(5) of the HUDA Act, 1977 before the appellate authority-Administrator, HUDA. During the pendency of said appeal, the application was moved on 07.03.2006 to the effect that the appellant Satyawati had expired on 03.10.2005 leaving behind a will dated 02.09.2005 in favour of her four children namely the appellants. The said application was allowed and the appellants were impleaded as parties. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.3-Administrator, HUDA vide order dated 11.01.2008 on the ground that the appellants did not start the construction as well as the production over the plot in question and the appellants have not been able to give even a single reason for not starting construction as well as production for a long time of twenty years. It was held that the reasons stated by the power of attorney that the original papers were lost somewhere in September, 2003 does not carry any weight for explaining the delay of twenty years.

6. The order of the Appellate authority dated 11.01.2008 was assailed by the appellants before Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Department of Town and Country Planning and Urban Estates (the Revisional authority) under Section 30(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 and the same was dismissed by order dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1079

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS – AppellantsVERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO. 10718 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.36225 of 2014) Decided On : 25-10-2018

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10718 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.36225 of 2014)
Decided On : 25-10-2018