AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—In the instant writ petition, the petitioner firm has challenged the action of the respondents, whereby they auctioned
its old industrial unit and authorised the Mukesh Kumar, the auction purchaser (respondent No. 4 herein), to remove the Malba of the said unit,
which according to the petitioner is in complete violation of the letter and spirit of the earlier amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner
firm and respondents No. 1 to 3. In the present case, vide registered sate deeds dated 8.8.2005 and 6.6.2006, the petitioner firm had purchased
547.5 and 600 square yards of land, respectively, situated within the revenue estate of village Gurgaon. After purchasing the said land, the
petitioner firm had established an industrial unit by raising A Class construction on the same, and started manufacturing rubber and plastic molding
parts for automobiles as well as for industrial use. Vide notification dated 25.1.2008 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as ''the Act''), the State of Haryana proposed to acquire the aforesaid land of the petitioner firm by invoking the emergency provision
contained in Section 17(1) of the Act. Since filing of the objections was exempted, therefore, notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on
18.3.2008. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notifications by filing CWP No. 8004 of 2008. During the pendency of the said writ petition, an
offer was made by the respondents for allotment of a plot for shifting all the industrial units, which were functional, to suitable alternative places to
be provided by the respondents. In view of the said offer, which was accepted by the petitioner firm, the said writ petition was disposed of, vide
order dated May 29, 2010 (Annexure P-1), in view of the amicable settlement arrived between the petitioner firm and the respondents, which
reads as under:--
(i) Compensation as per award.
(ii) Minimum Plot size equivalent to the existing plot size of the petitioner preferably in Sector 37-II/34/35, as offered in the meeting dated 26th
May 2010, subject to variation of 10% maximum on either side.
(iii) Payment at the rate of Rs. 11,900/- per sq. Mtr. for Sector 37-II, Gurgaon, as offered in the meeting dated 26th May 2010. For rest of
sectors minimum reserved price as of today, i.e., 28th May 2010, as per the allotment policy, with a further assurance that no hidden charges of
any kind, such as, external development charges, or any other kind of charges, except the land acquisition enhancement awarded by the competent
court after the allotment to the petitioner, will be charged from the petitioner.
(iv) Payment to be made in 12 equal half-yearly interest free instalments with first instalment being treated as margin money.
(v) Physical possession of fully developed plot to be given at the earliest.
(vi) Time period of 9 months to be granted for relocation after the handing over of the physical possession of the fully developed plots.
As per the above settlement, respondents No. 1 to 3 were to allot an industrial plot to the petitioner firm, preferably in Sector 37 Part-II, Gurgaon;
the physical possession of fully developed plot was to be given to it at the earliest; and thereafter, the petitioner firm was to shift/relocate its
industrial unit on the newly allotted plot within a period of nine months.
After more than six months of the above decision/settlement, plot No. 716 measuring 1000 square meters in Sector 37 Part II, Gurgaon, was
allotted to the petitioner firm, vide allotment letter dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner firm requested the respondents for
delivery of physical possession of the said plot. After more than nine months of allotment of the said plot, only possession certificate dated
16.9.2011 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner firm. Even in that certificate, the rear set back and front set back were shown as ""as per
zoning plan"". However, the zoning plan'' was not finalised and supplied to the petitioner firm. In the absence of the ''zoning plan'', the petitioner firm
could not get the building plan prepared to submit the same before the competent authority for approval.
After receiving the possession certificate, vide letter dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner firm requested the Estate Officer, HUDA,
Gurgaon (respondent No. 3 herein) for delivery of physical possession as well as ''zoning plan'' of the newly allotted plot, so that he could raise
construction on the said plan and shift its industrial unit within the time prescribed in the aforesaid settlement. Instead of delivering physical
possession and providing the ''zoning plan'' of the plot to the petitioner firm, the respondents issued advertisement dated 14.2.2012 for auctioning
the Malba of the running industrial unit of the petitioner firm. Immediately thereafter, vide letter dated 15.2.2012 (Annexure P-5) addressed to
respondent No. 3, the petitioner firm objected that without delivering physical possession and supplying the ''zoning plan'', and without providing it
opportunity to shift over to the newly allotted plot, after raising construction on the same as per the settlement, Malba of its industrial unit which
was in running condition, could not be auctioned. But respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P-6) informed the petitioner firm
that possession of the plot was offered on 1.12.2010, and this is the date, which is applicable for all the purposes, including the shifting of the
industrial unit from the said place within nine months. Vide letter dated 27.3.2012 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner firm requested respondent No. 3
that without getting the ''zoning plan'' or ''physical possession'' of the said plot, it could not submit the building plan and raise construction on the
same, for shifting to the newly constructed unit within nine months. It is the case of the petitioner firm that the HUDA authorities themselves
received the ''zoning plan'' of the disputed plot from the District Town Planner, Gurgaon, on 3.5.2012, and respondent No. 3 received it from the
District Town Planner, Gurgaon, vide letter dated 25.7.2012 (Annexure P-8). The building plans submitted by the petitioner firm were sanctioned
by the competent authority vide sanction letter dated 7.9.2012. On the same day, i.e. vide auction notice dated 7.9.2012 (Annexure P-9), the
respondents again put the running industrial unit of the petitioner firm for auction, and vide letter dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P-10), respondent
No. 3 granted approval to the auction purchaser (respondent No. 4 herein) to lift the Malba of the structure of the petitioner firm. In that situation,
the petitioner firm approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
In the written statement, it has not been disputed by respondents No. 1 to 3 that in terms of the aforesaid amicable settlement between the
parties, plot No. 716, Sector 37-II, Gurgaon, measuring 1085 square meters was allotted to the petitioner firm vide allotment letter dated
1.12.2010. It has been stated that possession of the plot was deemed to be offered to the petitioner firm on the same day. However, it has been
stated that the possession certificate was given to the petitioner firm on 16.9.2011, which according to the respondents should be taken as
''delivery of physical possession of the plot''. It is not disputed that in the possession certificate, zoning of the plot was not given, as the ''zoning
plan'' of the said plot was not ready at that time. It has been admitted that the zoning plan'' was approved by the Town and Country Planning
Department vide letter dated 3.10.2011 and the same was conveyed to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, on 29.3.2012. It has not been disputed
that respondent No. 3 received the ''zoning plan'' from the District Town Planner, Gurgaon, vide letter dated 25.7.2012. It is also not disputed that
the building plans submitted by the petitioner firm were sanctioned on 7.9.2012. It has also been stated that till the date of filing of the written
statement, the structure of the industrial unit of the petitioner firm was not demolished and the same was running in the old premises. However, in
the written statement, it has been stated that the starting point of nine months is 29.3.2012, when the Town and Country Planning Department
conveyed the Chief Administrator, HUDA, regarding approval of the zoning plan'' vide drawing No. DTP(G)2043/2011 dated 3.10.2011. The
said letter dated 29.3.2012 conveying the Chief Administrator, HUDA, has not been placed oh record. However, in the written statement,
respondents No. 1 to 3 have not disputed the stand taken by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 received the ''zoning plan'' from the District
Town Planner, Gurgaon, vide letter dated 25.7.2012. They have taken the stand that as per the amicable settlement, the petitioner firm was
required to shift/relocate its industrial unit within a period of nine months after the handing over of the physical possession of the fully developed
plot. Therefore, according to them, from the date, when the ''zoning plan'' was sanctioned and conveyed to the Chief Administrator, HUDA,
period of nine months is to be counted and the said period had expired on 29.12.2012.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 pointed out that on the request made by the petitioner firm, the time for
constructing the unit was extended for one year, i.e. from 4.7.2012 to 3.7.2013 on payment of Rs. 81,500/- as extension fee.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, action of the respondents,
auctioning the Malba of the running industrial unit of the petitioner and further, charging the extension fee from the petitioner unit, is wholly illegal
and arbitrary and contrary to the letter and spirit of the settlement arrived at between the parties. As per the amicable settlement arrived at between
the parties in the earlier writ petition (CWP No. 8004 of 2008, decided on May 29, 2010), the petitioner firm was to be allotted a plot of
equivalent size to its existing plot size in Sector 37 Part II, Gurgaon, at the rate of Rs. 11,900/- per square meter, and ''physical possession'' of fully
developed plot was to be given to the petitioner firm at the earliest, and the petitioner was granted nine months time to relocate its unit on the newly
allotted plot, after the handing over of ''physical possession'' of the fully developed plot. During that period of nine months, the petitioner was to
raise construction on the newly allotted plot, so that it can relocate its industrial unit on the same. The intention and purpose of the aforesaid
settlement was that both the petitioner as well as the respondents would act quickly, so that within shortest period, the acquired land is made
available for the public purpose. But in our opinion, the respondents themselves took more than six months in allotting the plot, and thereafter more
than nine months for issuing the possession certificate, which was only a paper possession, without approval of any ''zoning plan''. It has not been
disputed that without the ''zoning plan'', no building plan can be prepared and submitted to the authorities for sanction. Without getting the building
plan sanctioned, no construction can be raised, and without raising construction, the industrial unit can not be shifted to new site. Undisputedly, in
this case, the ''zoning plan'' was approved on 3.10.2011, which was conveyed to the Chief Administrator on 29.3.2012, and was received by
respondent No. 3 only on 25.7.2012, and the building plan of the petitioner was sanctioned on 7.9.2012. Thus, on the day, when the building plan
was sanctioned, after receiving sanction from the competent authority, possession of the fully developed plot is deemed to have been delivered to
the petitioner. From that day, if the period of nine months is counted, then it comes to ''7.6.2013''. Before that date, the respondents were not
authorised to auction the Malba of the petitioner''s old unit. It will amount to dispossession of the petitioner without handing over clear physical
possession of the newly allotted plot to it and without providing adequate opportunity to it to shift its industrial unit to the newly allotted plot, which
was the intention of the amicable settlement. Even if the stand of the respondents to the extent that from 29.12.2012, i.e. the date when the ""zoning
plan'' was sanctioned and conveyed to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, period of nine months is to be counted, is accepted, even then there was
no justification to auction the plot in February, 2012, and then in September, 2012. This shows that the respondents were not acting reasonably,
while dealing with the petitioner firm. In this case, the respondents themselves have extended the time, though on charging the extension fee. Their
action is contrary to the object of deciding the cases by adopting the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. Instead of following the
amicable settlement, the respondents have acted against the letter and spirit of the amicable settlement arrived in this case in the Court, by adopting
ADR mechanism. It has come to our notice that in several cases, the respondents are not adhering to the amicable settlement arrived at in the
court, and on one or the other technicality, they are trying to wriggle out of the settlement arrived at in the court. In the facts and circumstances of
the instant case, when the respondents themselves are at fault and had acted illegally by auctioning the Malba of the running industrial unit of the
petitioner, they were not justified in charging any extension fee from the petitioner. In this case, the plot was allotted under the amicable settlement
in the court. The policy of charging the extension fee neither applies to this case nor under the said policy, prior to the expiry of two years any
amount could be charged as extension fee. Thus, in the present case, we do not find any reason for the respondents to charge the extension fee.
They themselves have extended the time for raising construction and shifting the industrial unit by 3.7.2013. Since the matter remained pending in
this court for the last about six months, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner firm will raise construction on the newly allotted
plot upto 30.9.2013, and before that date, it will shift its unit to the new plot and will vacate the old site.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts as well as the factum of pendency of this petition in this court for the last about six months, we permit the
petitioner firm to shift its unit to the newly allotted plot upto 30.9.2013, with the condition that it shall undertake to vacate the site of the old
industrial unit, after removing its machinery etc., and make the said plot/land available for taking possession by the respondents. The action of the
respondents in charging the extension fee is set aside and they are directed to refund the same to the petitioner firm. Accordingly, this petition is
disposed of.