Dalip Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

1.2 In reply to the Show Cause Notice, one RS claiming himself as General Power of Attorney filed the reply. In the said reply, RS (GPA) has not stated anything about the illness or the disability of the sole proprieter. In the said reply, RS (GPA) only took excuse for non-construction of the building and nonproduction stating that original documents like Allotment Letter; Possession Letter; No Due Certificate; Deed of Conveyance; Occupation Certificate; and Building Plans were missing and he has asked for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant documents; and that they would construct the building within six months from the date of receipt of missing documents. It cannot be understood that why the said RS (GPA) should undertake to construct the building within six months from the date of receipt of missing documents. [Para 12] [616-C-D]

1.3 The industrial plots were allotted at a very reasonable rates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentives to the allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growth and economic development of the State and generation of adequate employment opportunities. These allotments are not only governed by the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy of the State. Construction of building and commencement of production are the integral part of the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. In such kind of allotment of industrial plots, based on government industrial policy with twin objectives of economic development and generation of adequate employment, sympathy cannot be the ground for considering the case of the appellants as to their non-compliance of the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty long years after the allotment. The appellate and Revisional authority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted for the observation that the buildings were not constructed for twenty long years after allotment. If the construction of the building was really complete, the appellants could have very well filed the completion certificate; but that was not done. [Para 15] [617-CE]

1.4 Even assuming that for some other allottees, order of resumption of plot had been quashed/cancelled, the appellants cannot claim equality of treatment. Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner. [Para 19] [619-B-C]

State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011)

3 SCC 436 : [2011] 2 SCR 704 – referred to.

1.5 When allotment of industrial plots is governed by Estate Management Procedure-EMP, the prayer of the appellants that they are ready to pay the current market rate for the industrial plot cannot be considered. The allotment of Industrial Plot to RN was in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s SD. The plot was thus, allotted to the partnership firm. The appellants have not been able to show as to how they stepped into the shoes of the partnership firm, apart from the mere fact that they are legal heirs of RN. At the time of making application for allotment of industrial plot, the applicant has to clearly disclose all the facts regarding the type of industry to be started, licence if necessary under law, project report, estimated cost of project, details regarding time required in completing the project, details of employees required, source of fund etc. The project so submitted is then approved by the competent authority after considering its viability. The applicants are then issued letter of intent/provisional allotment letter with condition to complete the other formalities within the stipulated period of time and after completion of formalities, regular allotment letter is issued in favour of the applicant. The undertaking of the production as per the approved project is the foundation for the allotment of the industrial plots which is with twin object of economic development and generation of employment opportunities. Over the years, the State has undergone substantive changes and economic growth. Land/industrial plots now becoming very scarce, governed by the present EMP, the appellants cannot seek for revocation of resumption by contending that they are ready to pay the current market rate. [Para 20, 21] [620-B-F]

1.6 The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violation of the procedure. The terms and conditions of allotment clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumption of the plot is as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional authority. The appellants having failed before all the forums including the High Court and also the Revisional authority, there is no serious infirmity or illegality in the order of resumption of the plot. [Para 22] [620-G-H; 621-A]

Anup Chauhan v. The Financial Commissioner &

Secretary and others CWP No.15672 of 2008; Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad & Another v. Mrs. Manu Gupta and another RSA No.908 of 2012 – referred to.

Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and others (2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235 – distinguished.