Orient Resins Limited vs The State of Haryana

Kuldip Singh, J.—The petitioner was allotted plot No. 12 measuring 12,100 sq. yards at Dharuhera Industrial Complex, Dharuhera, District Rewari, vide allotment dated 29.07.1980 to establish a unit for manufacturing resins. As per conditions of the allotment letter, petitioner was required to pay 25% of the total tentative price within 30 days from the date of the issuance of the allotment letter. The balance amount was required to be paid either in lump-sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in six yearly annual installments.

Accordingly, the petitioner paid 25% of the total amount within the stipulated period. Rest of the amount was to be paid by way of yearly installments. To start the manufacturing unit, the petitioner entered into a collaboration with a Japanese Company. However, in March 1984, the petitioner received a letter dated 08.03.1984 from one Shri P.R. Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of M/s. Krishna and Co. that the company has obtained an injunction order from the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 3467 of 1982, titled as "M/s. Krishana & Co. vs. State of Haryana and others". In the said order, respondents were restrained from delivering the possession of the plot in dispute to "M/s. Orient Resins Limited" i.e. present petitioner and the petitioner was further restrained from raising any construction thereon, if the possession has already been delivered to them. The petitioner approached the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, vide letter dated 22.03.1984 to clarify in the entire matter and inform the present status of the matter.

In reply to the said letter, the petitioner was asked to keep paying the regular installments and that the petitioner shall be duly informed regarding the decision of the Court, after the matter has been finally decided. Therefore, the petitioner continued to make regular payment of installments in good faith. Due to the stay granted by the Hon''ble High Court, the petitioner could not proceed with the collaboration with the Japanese Company and the collaboration was ultimately terminated. The petitioner completed the payment of entire installments in the year 1987. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued ''No Dues Certificate'' to the petitioner regarding the said plot on 30.07.1987. Due to stay order of the Hon''ble High Court, for eight years, no construction could be raised on the said plot. Under Clause 18 of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to complete the construction upon the plot within two years or within the extended period. Respondent No. 4 did not inform the petitioner about the decision of the Hon''ble High Court in the matter. On 01.09.1987, the possession letter was issued to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 07.11.1988, the petitioner requested respondent No. 4 to execute the sale deed. However, no response was received. After receipt of the possession letter, the petitioner decided to utilize the plot to grow some raw material such as trees etc. for the manufacturing of resins. Implementation of the earlier project had become impossible due to various reasons. The chemical industry is technical industry and as the technology changes every day, there was no purpose of going back to the said project. The petitioner had grown about 6,000 trees on the plot and also installed tubewell. He had started commercial agricultural activity on the said plot. In May 1990, the petitioner received a notice dated 02.05.1990 from respondent No. 4, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why order of resumption of the site be not passed, as the petitioner had failed to complete the construction within two years or within the extended period, which expired on 29.07.1982, the petitioner submitted a reply. After considering the reply, the petitioner was directed to appear in person on 30.08.1990. On 30.08.1990, no hearing took place. The petitioner again visited the office of respondent No. 4 on 31.08.1990 to explain the entire position to respondent No. 4 and reminded him about the stay order granted by the Hon''ble High court. As a result of which construction was not possible.

Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 17.09.1990 (Annexure P17) ordering the resumption of the plot alleging that the petitioner has failed to complete construction on the plot within two years, which expired on 29.07.1982.

Appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 17(5) and 17(6) of the HUDA Act before respondent No. 3 was dismissed vide order dated 31.12.1990 (Annexure P19).

Now the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 17.09.1990 (Annexure P17) and order dated 31.12.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P19).

In the reply, the allotment and filing of the writ petition by M/s. Krishna & Co. and the stay order of the Hon''ble High Court were not disputed. It was stated that the petitioner was a party to the said writ petition and came to know about the vacation of the said order in the year 1986. The writ petition was decided on 28.05.1986. Further, the possession was delivered to him on 01.09.1987. Thereafter, there was no hurdle in the way of petitioner to immediately raise construction over the plot. Show cause notice was issued only on 02.05.1990 i.e. nearly three years after the delivery of possession. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit the reply. He was also given personal hearing on 31.08.1990. The impugned order was passed perfectly in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the present writ petition.

There is no dispute that the plot was allotted to the petitioner and initially the stay order was granted, whereby the delivery of the possession to the petitioner was stayed and further that if the possession is delivered, the raising of construction was stayed. However, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that later on, the petitioner was added as party. He was duly served but decided not to appear.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the notice dated 02.05.1990, the petitioner has been informed that as per allotment letter dated 29.07.1980, the petitioner has failed to raise construction within two years, which expired on 29.07.1982. He has further argued that the said construction could not be raised due to stay order granted by this Court.

There appears to be some error in the date of completion of construction mentioned in notice. As per the own admission of the petitioner, the possession was delivered to him on 01.09.1987, which means that at that time, the petitioner had come to know that the stay order of the High Court has come to an end. Otherwise, he himself being party must know about the order of the High Court. Therefore, there was no requirement for respondent No. 4 to send any written intimation to the petitioner that the stay order has been vacated. Even thereafter, more than three years elapsed but the petitioner did not raise any construction. In the writ petition, the petitioner himself claims that he planted abut 6,000 trees on the said plot, and also started dairy farming, meaning thereby that the petitioner has no intention to establish the industry for which the plot was allotted. During arguments, it is admitted by the petitioner that the said trees were planted after the delivery of possession on 01.09.1987. It shows that the petitioner has no intention to establish the industry for which the plot was allotted. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that the construction could not be raised due to the stay order granted by the Hon''ble High Court. The show cause notice was issued on 02.05.1990.

In the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner nowhere stated that he is now ready to raise construction of the industry, for which the plot was allotted. Rather the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition is that due to change of circumstances, it has become difficult and that there is no purpose in going back to the project of chemical industry. Rather in the writ petition, the plea was taken that the petitioner had approached respondent No. 1 for permission to shift from the original project to commercial agricultural activity. Therefore, it comes out that the petitioner does not intend to establish the industry. The petitioner, in fact, wanted to carry out the agricultural activity by growing trees and dairy farming. The plot was allotted purely for industrial purpose. Therefore, the impugned order of resumption of plot and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order dated 02.08.2013 passed in CWP No. 3365 of 1991, titled as M/s. Achal Metal Industries, Rewari vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others by this Court. However, undisputedly, the said order is subjudiced, as SLP is pending in the Apex Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government framed the policy dated 31.03.1991 and decided to grant extension upto 31.12.1991. However, even under the said policy, the allottee was required to make a request for extension of the period along with the extension fee @Rs. 40/- per sq. meter. He was also required to give undertaking that the allottee will not sell the plot during the extension and 25% construction will be completed within the extended period and he will start industrial activity on or before 31.12.1991. The allottee was also required to furnish bank guarantee calculated @ 10% of the present cost of the plot. None of the said conditions are fulfilled in the present case. The petitioner never applied for extension of the period alongwith the fee nor he gave any undertaking to raise 25% construction and start industrial activity on or before 31.12.1991. No bank guarantee was submitted. Rather the averments in the petition itself shows that the petitioner is no more interested in establishing the earlier project and has started agricultural operation on the allotted plot. It is a huge plot, measuring 12,100 sq. yard. The petitioner cannot be allowed profiteering after getting the huge plot allotted on the pretext of establishing industry.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.