A two-judge bench of the apex court on 25.10.2018 in DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10718 OF 2018) upheld the judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Writ Petition upholding the orders of the Authorities resuming the Industrial Plot allotted to M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills.. The bench was headed by:-

• JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
• JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

FACTS: Industrial Plot, Panchkula was allotted to Rabinder Nath, in his capacity as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills. Letter of allotment was subject to the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Act, 1977 with the conditions that the allottee would complete the construction  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 was liable to be forfeited in accordance to HUDA Act, 1977. The allottee Rabinder Nath (NRI) didn’t comply with the conditions of the allotment and didn’t commence the production within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice was issued to the allottee u/s 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. HUDA held that the allottee failed to commence the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and resumed the plot forfeiting 10 per cent of the consideration money.

Being aggrieved, Satyawati w/o Rabinder Nath filed appeal u/s 17(5) of the HUDA Act, 1977 before the appellate authority-Administrator, HUDA. During its pendency an application was moved as Satyawati expired leaving behind a will in favour of her four children namely the appellants, impleaded as parties but the appeal was dismissed by R3-Administrator, HUDA. It was held that the reasons stated by the power of attorney that the original papers were lost didn’t carry any weight for explaining the delay of twenty years.

This order was challenged before Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Department of Town and Country Planning and Urban Estates (Revisional authority) u/s 30(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 and the same was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal, filed Writ Petition before the High Court was filed and further it was dismissed.

ISSUES:

• Whether concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and by the High Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference by the Supreme Court?

CONTENTIONS:

By appellants:

• Original documents like (i) Allotment Letter; (ii) Possession Letter; (iii) No Due Certificate; (iv) Deed of Conveyance; (v) Occupation Certificate; and (vi) Building Plans were missing which lead to the delay of 20 years.
• The opportunity of personal hearing rendered was a mere formality and no opportunity was given for commencement of production.
• The inconsistency between show cause notice and the order of Revisional authority was not kept in view by the High Court.
• Ready to pay the current market rate for the industrial plot.

By respondents:

• Rakesh Sarna claiming himself as General Power of Attorney (GPA) didn’t state anything about the illness or the disability of Satyawati.
• The allotment of industrial plot was at concessional rate and was subject to terms and conditions and the allottee was bound to comply with the terms and conditions.
• At present, there is no HUDA policy to allot the resumed industrial plot on the current market price.
• Allotment of industrial plots at present is governed by Estate Management Procedure (EMP), 2011 and the subsequent EMP, 2015 as per which, industrial plot is to be allotted or disposed of only as per Regulation/policy.

OBSERVATIONS:

• Court agreed with the order of resumption of the plot.
• There was breach of condition of allotment of the plot as appellants admittedly didn’t commence the industrial production on the plot for 20 years after allotment and delivery of possession.
• The appellants failed to show their role in partnership firm, apart from the mere fact that they are legal heirs of Rabinder Nath.
• The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of land only if the executive hadn’t carried out its duty or acted in violation of the procedure.
• Clause (11) of 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.

HELD: The court dismissed the appeal by upholding the decisions of the lower authorities.

For full judgement refer: https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/40908/40908_2014_Judgement_25-Oct-2018.pdf