Gurdev Singh vs The State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed against the resumption of an industrial plot allotted to the petitioner.

The petitioner had been allotted an industrial plot in Industrial Area - B, Ludhiana near Gill Road bye-pass, Ludhiana through sale deed dated May 27, 1958, for the purpose of installing an industry. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a plan for sanction for construction of the factory building and his unit was also registered under a certificate as small scale industry on August 11,1961 while so on September 20, 1978, the respondents have given a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the plot could not be resumed as the petitioner violated the terms of the allotment. As indicated in the notice, the violations according to the respondents are :-

(a) Factory is not constructed according to approved plan;

(b) Plot is used for residential purpose.

(c) Some portion is rented out to any other party.

To this notice, the petitioner had given a reply on October 3,1978. After receipt of this reply, the Director of Industries passed the following order dated March 31, 1981 (Annexure P-5) to the writ petition.

"Your reply is not satisfactory. So plot No. 827 Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana which was allotted to you is being resumed along with the building (if any) Constructed on it. You are requested to hand over the possession of the plot to Senior General Manager District Industrial Centre Ludhiana within 15 days and on your failure to do so legal action will be taken against you."

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not shown how the construction of the factory building was in violation of the approved plan. According to him the factory was constructed according to the approved plan. In his reply dated October 3, 1978, he has categorically stated that he was granted permission to construct the building by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Ludhiana vide letter No. 18643, dated August 11, 1960 and that he has constructed the building on the plot in accordance with the plan duly approved and sanctioned by the authorities, as required under the law. The Director of Industries in the impugned order, has not considered the reply of the petitioner. He has also not shown as to how the construction was in violation of the sanctioned plan. Therefore, on this ground the order of resumption cannot be sustained.

The other ground on which the resumption of the plot was sought for is that the plot was being used for residential purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me the Building Bye Laws for the Industrial Areas in the State of Punjab. According to bye laws, the Industrial Building ''means a building designed for use as factory, workshop, mini factory and includes any office or another building within the same site, the use of which is incidental to and such as would ordinary be incidental to the use of such factory or workshop and a building designed for use in connection with the mining of minerals, or as a water pumping Station, warehouse, depository or store, including habitable accommodation for a Manager or Managing proprietor and for a watchman or watchmen and for his/their families provided this total floor area so provided does not exceed 3000 sq. ft.).

Thus there is provision for the residence of the Manager or the Managing proprietor and their families within the premises of the industrial plot. In fact in the reply dated 3.10:1978, the petitioner has stated that the factory premises are being used mainly for manufacturing purposes and in the interest and betterment of the factory, he provided accommodation to the Manager and therefore, there is no conversion of the industrial unit into residential building. This aspect of the matter was also not considered by the Director of Industries in his order dated 31.3.1981 (Ann. P-5). Further, stated above, the Building Bye-laws provide for residential accommodation for the Manager and the Managing Proprietor or the Watchman/watchmen of the industry in the factory premises. Therefore, simply because a part of the factory premises is being used for residential purposes, it cannot be a ground for resumption. The third ground of resumption is that some portion is rented out to any other party. The petitioner has denied this allegation in paragraph 3 of his, reply dated 3.10.1978. Neither in the notice which was given to the petitioner on 20.94978 nor in the order passed on 31.3.1981 (Ann. P-5) the authorities have stated as to whom the petitioner has rented out the premises either as a whole or in part. No foundation has been placed for such an assertion. Therefore, this ground also will fall.

Thus, the order of resumption passed by the Director of Industries on 31.3.1981 (Ann. P-5) cannot be sustained. I therefore, allow the writ petition, quash the proceedings of the Director of Industries, initiated vide despatch No. 1A/LDH/827/B/75, dated 31.3.1981 (Ann. P-5). However, there will be no order as to costs.