REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10718 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.36225 of 2014)
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS ….Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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
1
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
2
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
3
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 15.04.2014 inter
alia on the following grounds:-
That the allotment of industrial plot was made at concessional
rates with a view to generate employment for the unemployed and
keeping in view the economic development of the State and the
allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such
industrial plot by not commencing the production for twenty years
from the date of allotment and delivery of possession;
That the revision preferred by the appellants is barred by limitation
having been filed after a delay of one year and three months and
that too without any application for condonation of delay; and
That the plot was allotted to M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills and the
appellants could not show how they stepped into the shoes of the
4
firm and it was an act of the appellants to appropriate the plot to
the exclusion of the legal heirs of the partners of the firm.
7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the
appellants filed Writ Petition (C) No.19256 of 2014 before the High
Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated
16.09.2014. The High Court noted that as rightly observed by the
Revisional authority, the plot was allotted at a concessional price
with the object of commencing production or industrial activities
within a reasonable time which would generate employment for the
unemployed youth and also generate revenue in the form of leviable
taxes for the public exchequer besides adding to the economic
development of the nation. The High Court held that the failure of
the allottee to start production for such a long time after the
allotment defeated the very purpose of allotment of the plot.
8. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Gautam Sharma,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and
perused the impugned order and materials placed on record.
9. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that the appellants-legal
heirs of the allottee Rabinder Nath, MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil
Mills were unsuccessful before the Estate Officer, Appellate
authority and the Revisional authority and also before the High
5
Court. All the authorities as well as the High Court recorded
concurrent findings that the allottee has not commenced production
for twenty long years from the date of allotment and handing over of
possession till passing of the order of resumption in 2004 and also
building was not constructed and there was breach of terms and
conditions of the allotment and such non-commencement of
production defeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial
plots. The question falling for consideration is whether such
concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and also by the High
Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference by
this Court.
10. With a view to ensure rapid industrial growth on sustainable
basis to achieve the twin objects of economic development and
generation of adequate employment, the industrial estates/areas
were established in order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial
policy was framed by the State of Haryana aiming at balancing
regional development. After completion of various formalities,
Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula was
allotted vide letter dated 25.07.1984 and possession thereof was
delivered on 19.09.1984. The undertaking of the production as per
the approved project is the foundation for the allotment of industrial
plots. These plots are allotted at a very reasonable
6
rate/concessional rate with a view to provide incentives to the
allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to encourage industrialization
and growth in employment opportunities. These allotments are not
only governed by the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977 and the
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions
of the industrial policy of the State of Haryana. The allotment of the
industrial plot in question to Rabinder Nath as MD of M/s Shiva
Dairy & Oil Mills was subject to the terms and conditions of the
allotment. As per clause (18) of the allotment, the allottee has to
complete the construction within two years from the date of offer of
possession. Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of breach of
any other condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the
land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA
Act, 1977. Clauses 18 and 11 read as under:-
“18. You will have to complete the construction within two years of
the date of offer of possession, after petting the plans of the
proposed building approved from the competent authority in
accordance with the regulations governing the erection of buildings.
This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if he is satisfied
the non-construction of the building was due to reasons beyond
your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed and the
whole or part of the money paid if any, in respect of it forfeited in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act. You shall not erect
any building or make any alteration/addition without prior
permission of the Estate Officer, no fragmentation of any land or
building shall be permitted.
11. In the event of breach of any other condition of transfer the
Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17 of the Act.”
7
The appellants have admittedly not commenced the industrial
production on the plot for twenty long years after allotment and
delivery of possession. The appellants seem to have woken upon
only after issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Evidently, there is
breach of condition of allotment of the plot.
11. Contention of the appellants is that Rabinder Nath (NRI), MD
of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills who was allotted the plot, was
detected with cancer and died of cancer in 1987. Satyawati Devi
w/o Rabinder Nath who became the sole proprietor of M/s Shiva
Dairy & Oil Mills also remained disabled and she was also detected
with cancer in 2004 and she was getting disability allowance from
1992 to 2003 as per the documents on record. It is therefore, the
submission of the appellants that legal representatives could not do
anything or take any constructive action from 1985 till 2003 despite
the fact that they have constructed a building without a completion
certificate. It is the contention of the appellants that the default was
not wilful and extreme step of resumption of land ought not to have
been resorted by HUDA.
12. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, one
Rakesh Sarna claiming himself as General Power of Attorney filed
the reply dated 14.11.2003. In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA)
has not stated anything about the illness or the disability of
8
Satyawati. In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) only took excuse
for non-construction of the building and non-production stating that
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 and he has asked
for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant documents. The said
Rakesh Sarna (GPA) further stated that they would construct the
building within six months from the date of receipt of missing
documents.
13. As pointed out earlier, the allotment of industrial plot was with
the twin objects of economic development and generation of
adequate employment. In order to achieve the said purpose, the
industrial policy was framed by the State of Haryana aiming at
balanced regional development and with a view to generate
adequate employment. 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. 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
9
the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty long
years after the allotment.
14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that
the opportunity of personal hearing rendered was a mere formality
and no opportunity was given to the appellants for commencement
of production. Contention of the appellants is that though the show
cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 and the Resumption order dated
25.02.2004 were passed on the ground of non-commencement of
production; the appellate and revisional authority as well as the
impugned order passed by the High Court upheld the resumption of
the plot on altogether distinct premise of non-construction of the
building. Learned senior counsel had drawn our attention to the
Resumption order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the Estate Officer
wherein it is stated that the “plot and building constructed
thereon…..” are resumed in exercise of powers vested under
Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. The learned senior counsel
submitted that buildings were actually constructed by the allottee
and the inconsistency between show cause notice and the order of
Revisional authority was not kept in view by the High Court.
15. As discussed earlier, 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
10
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. 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 to be so. It is pertinent to
note that in the reply dated 14.11.2003 of the said Rakesh Sarna
(GPA) of Satyawati, it is stated that “we will construct the building
within six months from the receipt of missing documents”. We fail to
understand that why the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) should
undertake to construct the building within six months from the date
of receipt of missing documents. In this regard, we may usefully
refer to the order of the Revisional authority which has referred to
the comments of the Estate Officer received vide Memo No.19584
dated 23.12.2013 where it was stated as under:-
11
“….it is clear that there was no construction till the passing of
resumption order and whatever construction was raised, was raised
illegally after expiry of stipulated period. Therefore, on this ground
also, the Revision Petition deserves dismissal…..”
16. Contending that the extreme step of resumption of plot is
erroneous, the learned senior counsel for the appellants placed
reliance upon Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and
others, (2004) 2 SCC 130 wherein it was inter alia held that one of
the questions which the Estate Officer must always pose is as to
whether the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture has been
taken recourse to as a last resort. It was submitted that the present
case is not the one where the extreme step of resumption of plot
ought to have been resorted to. The facts of the said case are
distinguished from the case in hand. In Teri Oat Estates case, the
appellants thereon were merely to pay the balance amount of 75
per cent of the consideration amount in instalments. The appellants,
pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, not only paid the entire
amount but also paid ground rent and further paid 10 per cent
penalty on the forfeited amount. Teri Oat Estates case, thus
related to the default in payment of instalments of premium and
interest thereon and ground rent in terms of allotment; but default
was found to be not wilful and dishonest. In such facts and
circumstances of the said case, this Court held that the authorities
12
were not justified in resorting to the extreme step of resumption of
the land. In the case in hand, per contra, the allottee has failed to
complete construction within the stipulated time as per condition
No.18 and commence production for a period of almost twenty
years despite there being a clear stipulation in the allotment letter
requiring them to complete construction within a period of two years.
They have also failed to explain sufficient cause for this inordinate
delay occasioned by them. As rightly held by the authorities, the
allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such
industrial plot.
17. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has also drawn our
attention to the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh passed in CWP No.15672 of 2008 Anup Chauhan v.
The Financial Commissioner & Secretary and others wherein
the High Court directed the Respondent Authority to consider the
claim of the petitioner. However, the facts of the case in hand have
to be distinguished from those of the Anup Chauhan case. In the
writ petition, the petitioners had applied for an extension till 2006 to
complete the project and had also paid the extension fee for the
same and the Estate Officer had passed an order on 30.11.2004
13
resuming the plot and in such facts, the High Court set aside the
order of resumption of plot.
18. Similarly, in another case relied upon by the appellants, i.e.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad & Another v.
Mrs. Manu Gupta and another in RSA No.908 of 2012, the appeal
filed by HUDA was dismissed with a direction that HUDA cannot be
allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and burden the
respondent with further payment, despite their making the payment
under the order of the court, which the appellant HUDA deliberately
avoided to accept. But in the case in hand, it is the appellants who
have defaulted in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the allotment
letter for a long time of about twenty years.
19. All the judgments relied upon by the appellants are
distinguishable on facts. 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. In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty
(2011) 3 SCC 436, it was held as under:-
“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality.
Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been
granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does
14
not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief.
(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745, Yogesh
Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548, Anand Buttons
Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of
M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9
SCC 24, Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of
India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422)”
20. This Court issued notice (vide order dated 07.01.2015) on the
basis of submissions made on behalf of the appellants that they are
agreeable to pay the present market value of the plot in question.
The learned senior counsel Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the
appellants submitted that the appellants are ready to pay the
present market value of the plot in question. Refuting the said
submission, the learned counsel for HUDA has submitted that at
present, there is no HUDA policy to allot the resumed industrial plot
on the current market price. It was submitted that 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. It was submitted that industrial plots are disposed
of as per EMP and in this regard, the learned counsel has drawn
our attention to the counter filed as to the EMP governing the
allotment of the industrial plots including the invitation of
applications through advertisements. When allotment of industrial
plots is thus governed by EMP, the prayer of the appellants that they
15
are ready to pay the current market rate for the industrial plot cannot
be considered.
21. The allotment of Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area,
Phase-II, Panchkula in 1984 to Rabinder Nath was in his capacity
as Managing Director of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills. 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
Rabinder Nath. As discussed earlier, 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. As pointed out earlier, the undertaking of the
production as per the approved project is the foundation for the
16
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.
22. 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. 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. 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, we do not find any serious infirmity or
illegality in the order of resumption of the plot and therefore, this
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17
23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
…………….……………J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
…………….……………J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
New Delhi;
October 25, 2018
18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10718 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.36225 of 2014)
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS ….Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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
1
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
2
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
3
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 15.04.2014 inter
alia on the following grounds:-
That the allotment of industrial plot was made at concessional
rates with a view to generate employment for the unemployed and
keeping in view the economic development of the State and the
allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such
industrial plot by not commencing the production for twenty years
from the date of allotment and delivery of possession;
That the revision preferred by the appellants is barred by limitation
having been filed after a delay of one year and three months and
that too without any application for condonation of delay; and
That the plot was allotted to M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills and the
appellants could not show how they stepped into the shoes of the
4
firm and it was an act of the appellants to appropriate the plot to
the exclusion of the legal heirs of the partners of the firm.
7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the
appellants filed Writ Petition (C) No.19256 of 2014 before the High
Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated
16.09.2014. The High Court noted that as rightly observed by the
Revisional authority, the plot was allotted at a concessional price
with the object of commencing production or industrial activities
within a reasonable time which would generate employment for the
unemployed youth and also generate revenue in the form of leviable
taxes for the public exchequer besides adding to the economic
development of the nation. The High Court held that the failure of
the allottee to start production for such a long time after the
allotment defeated the very purpose of allotment of the plot.
8. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Gautam Sharma,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and
perused the impugned order and materials placed on record.
9. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that the appellants-legal
heirs of the allottee Rabinder Nath, MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil
Mills were unsuccessful before the Estate Officer, Appellate
authority and the Revisional authority and also before the High
5
Court. All the authorities as well as the High Court recorded
concurrent findings that the allottee has not commenced production
for twenty long years from the date of allotment and handing over of
possession till passing of the order of resumption in 2004 and also
building was not constructed and there was breach of terms and
conditions of the allotment and such non-commencement of
production defeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial
plots. The question falling for consideration is whether such
concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and also by the High
Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference by
this Court.
10. With a view to ensure rapid industrial growth on sustainable
basis to achieve the twin objects of economic development and
generation of adequate employment, the industrial estates/areas
were established in order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial
policy was framed by the State of Haryana aiming at balancing
regional development. After completion of various formalities,
Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula was
allotted vide letter dated 25.07.1984 and possession thereof was
delivered on 19.09.1984. The undertaking of the production as per
the approved project is the foundation for the allotment of industrial
plots. These plots are allotted at a very reasonable
6
rate/concessional rate with a view to provide incentives to the
allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to encourage industrialization
and growth in employment opportunities. These allotments are not
only governed by the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977 and the
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions
of the industrial policy of the State of Haryana. The allotment of the
industrial plot in question to Rabinder Nath as MD of M/s Shiva
Dairy & Oil Mills was subject to the terms and conditions of the
allotment. As per clause (18) of the allotment, the allottee has to
complete the construction within two years from the date of offer of
possession. Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of breach of
any other condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the
land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA
Act, 1977. Clauses 18 and 11 read as under:-
“18. You will have to complete the construction within two years of
the date of offer of possession, after petting the plans of the
proposed building approved from the competent authority in
accordance with the regulations governing the erection of buildings.
This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if he is satisfied
the non-construction of the building was due to reasons beyond
your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed and the
whole or part of the money paid if any, in respect of it forfeited in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act. You shall not erect
any building or make any alteration/addition without prior
permission of the Estate Officer, no fragmentation of any land or
building shall be permitted.
11. In the event of breach of any other condition of transfer the
Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17 of the Act.”
7
The appellants have admittedly not commenced the industrial
production on the plot for twenty long years after allotment and
delivery of possession. The appellants seem to have woken upon
only after issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Evidently, there is
breach of condition of allotment of the plot.
11. Contention of the appellants is that Rabinder Nath (NRI), MD
of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills who was allotted the plot, was
detected with cancer and died of cancer in 1987. Satyawati Devi
w/o Rabinder Nath who became the sole proprietor of M/s Shiva
Dairy & Oil Mills also remained disabled and she was also detected
with cancer in 2004 and she was getting disability allowance from
1992 to 2003 as per the documents on record. It is therefore, the
submission of the appellants that legal representatives could not do
anything or take any constructive action from 1985 till 2003 despite
the fact that they have constructed a building without a completion
certificate. It is the contention of the appellants that the default was
not wilful and extreme step of resumption of land ought not to have
been resorted by HUDA.
12. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, one
Rakesh Sarna claiming himself as General Power of Attorney filed
the reply dated 14.11.2003. In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA)
has not stated anything about the illness or the disability of
8
Satyawati. In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) only took excuse
for non-construction of the building and non-production stating that
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 and he has asked
for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant documents. The said
Rakesh Sarna (GPA) further stated that they would construct the
building within six months from the date of receipt of missing
documents.
13. As pointed out earlier, the allotment of industrial plot was with
the twin objects of economic development and generation of
adequate employment. In order to achieve the said purpose, the
industrial policy was framed by the State of Haryana aiming at
balanced regional development and with a view to generate
adequate employment. 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. 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
9
the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty long
years after the allotment.
14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that
the opportunity of personal hearing rendered was a mere formality
and no opportunity was given to the appellants for commencement
of production. Contention of the appellants is that though the show
cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 and the Resumption order dated
25.02.2004 were passed on the ground of non-commencement of
production; the appellate and revisional authority as well as the
impugned order passed by the High Court upheld the resumption of
the plot on altogether distinct premise of non-construction of the
building. Learned senior counsel had drawn our attention to the
Resumption order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the Estate Officer
wherein it is stated that the “plot and building constructed
thereon…..” are resumed in exercise of powers vested under
Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. The learned senior counsel
submitted that buildings were actually constructed by the allottee
and the inconsistency between show cause notice and the order of
Revisional authority was not kept in view by the High Court.
15. As discussed earlier, 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
10
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. 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 to be so. It is pertinent to
note that in the reply dated 14.11.2003 of the said Rakesh Sarna
(GPA) of Satyawati, it is stated that “we will construct the building
within six months from the receipt of missing documents”. We fail to
understand that why the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) should
undertake to construct the building within six months from the date
of receipt of missing documents. In this regard, we may usefully
refer to the order of the Revisional authority which has referred to
the comments of the Estate Officer received vide Memo No.19584
dated 23.12.2013 where it was stated as under:-
11
“….it is clear that there was no construction till the passing of
resumption order and whatever construction was raised, was raised
illegally after expiry of stipulated period. Therefore, on this ground
also, the Revision Petition deserves dismissal…..”
16. Contending that the extreme step of resumption of plot is
erroneous, the learned senior counsel for the appellants placed
reliance upon Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and
others, (2004) 2 SCC 130 wherein it was inter alia held that one of
the questions which the Estate Officer must always pose is as to
whether the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture has been
taken recourse to as a last resort. It was submitted that the present
case is not the one where the extreme step of resumption of plot
ought to have been resorted to. The facts of the said case are
distinguished from the case in hand. In Teri Oat Estates case, the
appellants thereon were merely to pay the balance amount of 75
per cent of the consideration amount in instalments. The appellants,
pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, not only paid the entire
amount but also paid ground rent and further paid 10 per cent
penalty on the forfeited amount. Teri Oat Estates case, thus
related to the default in payment of instalments of premium and
interest thereon and ground rent in terms of allotment; but default
was found to be not wilful and dishonest. In such facts and
circumstances of the said case, this Court held that the authorities
12
were not justified in resorting to the extreme step of resumption of
the land. In the case in hand, per contra, the allottee has failed to
complete construction within the stipulated time as per condition
No.18 and commence production for a period of almost twenty
years despite there being a clear stipulation in the allotment letter
requiring them to complete construction within a period of two years.
They have also failed to explain sufficient cause for this inordinate
delay occasioned by them. As rightly held by the authorities, the
allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such
industrial plot.
17. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has also drawn our
attention to the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh passed in CWP No.15672 of 2008 Anup Chauhan v.
The Financial Commissioner & Secretary and others wherein
the High Court directed the Respondent Authority to consider the
claim of the petitioner. However, the facts of the case in hand have
to be distinguished from those of the Anup Chauhan case. In the
writ petition, the petitioners had applied for an extension till 2006 to
complete the project and had also paid the extension fee for the
same and the Estate Officer had passed an order on 30.11.2004
13
resuming the plot and in such facts, the High Court set aside the
order of resumption of plot.
18. Similarly, in another case relied upon by the appellants, i.e.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad & Another v.
Mrs. Manu Gupta and another in RSA No.908 of 2012, the appeal
filed by HUDA was dismissed with a direction that HUDA cannot be
allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and burden the
respondent with further payment, despite their making the payment
under the order of the court, which the appellant HUDA deliberately
avoided to accept. But in the case in hand, it is the appellants who
have defaulted in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the allotment
letter for a long time of about twenty years.
19. All the judgments relied upon by the appellants are
distinguishable on facts. 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. In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty
(2011) 3 SCC 436, it was held as under:-
“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality.
Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been
granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does
14
not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief.
(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745, Yogesh
Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548, Anand Buttons
Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of
M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9
SCC 24, Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of
India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422)”
20. This Court issued notice (vide order dated 07.01.2015) on the
basis of submissions made on behalf of the appellants that they are
agreeable to pay the present market value of the plot in question.
The learned senior counsel Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the
appellants submitted that the appellants are ready to pay the
present market value of the plot in question. Refuting the said
submission, the learned counsel for HUDA has submitted that at
present, there is no HUDA policy to allot the resumed industrial plot
on the current market price. It was submitted that 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. It was submitted that industrial plots are disposed
of as per EMP and in this regard, the learned counsel has drawn
our attention to the counter filed as to the EMP governing the
allotment of the industrial plots including the invitation of
applications through advertisements. When allotment of industrial
plots is thus governed by EMP, the prayer of the appellants that they
15
are ready to pay the current market rate for the industrial plot cannot
be considered.
21. The allotment of Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area,
Phase-II, Panchkula in 1984 to Rabinder Nath was in his capacity
as Managing Director of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills. 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
Rabinder Nath. As discussed earlier, 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. As pointed out earlier, the undertaking of the
production as per the approved project is the foundation for the
16
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.
22. 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. 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. 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, we do not find any serious infirmity or
illegality in the order of resumption of the plot and therefore, this
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17
23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
…………….……………J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
…………….……………J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
New Delhi;
October 25, 2018
18
