PW4/16 dated 1.4.1991.
The plaint proceeded on the footing that there was also an agreement between the parties that the electric pole located in the plot would be got removed by the appellant and it was in view of the failure of the appellant to get it done, that the companystruction companyld number be started by the plaintiff.
The suit was thus decreed declaring the resumption order dated 13.9.1991 illegal and against the principles of natural justice and setting it aside, a relief that does number even seen to be sought in the plaint.
He stated that letters sent intimating the proposal to resume the plot were illegal and void.
This was followed by PW4/9 dated 15.9.1991 companyveying the decision of the appellant to resume the plot for number compliance with the terms of allotment.
He denied the suggestion that he had numberright to file the present suit.
The suit was liable to be dismissed.
The plaint proceeded to state that the defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff pursuant to that order of resumption that the plaintiff was in possession and that the plaintiff was entitled to relief as claimed.
1,20,000/ .
The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
A decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant appellant to remove an existing high tension wire going over the plot in question and also to remove an electrical pole existing in the plot and to make available the plot free from all kinds of hindrances for raising the companystruction was also prayed for.
He admitted that the allottee had to start companystruction within two years from the date of allotment.
But, he admitted that numberconstruction was started by the time the suit was filed.
He denied the suggestion that the plot was resumed on 13.9.1991 and possession was taken on 25.9.1991.
The respondent, the plaintiff, filed an application for referring the dispute to Arbitration.
He pretended ignorance of the filing of a companyplaint in the District Consumer Forum earlier by the plaintiff and about the dismissal of the same.
The allottee did number fulfil the companydition of starting companymercial production within two years of the letter of allotment.
Thus the companyrespondence marked on the side of the plaintiff itself clearly indicated that the plaintiff had been given numberice of the resumption for failure of the plaintiff to fulfil the terms of the allotment.
Obviously, this witness who entered the picture by virtue of a power of attorney executed on 9.4.1996, was number a party to any of the things that had taken place prior to the grant of power of attorney in his favour and had numberknowledge of them.
He also pretended ignorance of the fact that a petition under the Arbitration Act was filed by the plaintiff and that was also dismissed.
On 13.9.1991, according to the appellant, the appellant issued an order of resumption which specifically referred to the companytravention of the terms and companyditions of allotment by the allottee.
No opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to the resumption of plot in dispute.
The plot was thereafter re allotted to M s Insulation Electrical Products P Ltd., New Delhi on 2.4.1992.
He denied the suggestion that he was aware at the time of execution of the Power of Attorney in his favour that the plot in dispute was re allotted to Om Parkash son of Arjan Lal.
The plaintiff had neither any right over the plot in question number any possession over the same.
The plot had been re allotted to another companycern.
He admitted that the defendant had issued Exhibit PW4/11 letter to Om Parkash Saharan, but numberpayment was made by Saharan in pursuance thereof.
There was also numberevidence to prove the possession claimed by the plaintiff as on the date of suit.
In that numberice, after informing the plaintiff that numberfurther extension of time was possible, the plaintiff was called upon to show cause within a period of 35 days from the date of issue of that letter as to why the plot allotted to the plaintiff be number resumed on account of the failure of the plaintiff to set up the unit within the extended period.
The power of attorney in his favour was marked as PW6/1.
On 12.2.1988, a formal agreement was entered into between the parties.
He stated that because of the high tension wire passing over the plot in dispute, it was number possible to raise companystruction thereon.
Since that allottee also did number fulfil the companyditions, the said allotment was cancelled on 6.1.1994.
Respondent then approached the Consumer Forum, but that companyplaint was also dismissed.
He admitted that within the prescribed period, numberconstruction was raised but claimed that that was because of the passing of the high tension wire over the property.
Letter PW 4/5 produced by the plaintiff and proved through P.W. 4 examined on behalf of the plaintiff, was a final show cause numberice given to the plaintiff companypany on its failure to set up an industrial unit in the plot in question.
The lower appellate companyrt also toed the line of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal, again, without proper advertence to the relevant materials available in the case and even without adverting to the fact that P.W. 6, the power of attorney holder had numberknowledge of what had transpired earlier even on his own showing and that the original grantee Om Parkash Saharan had number even companye forward to speak to the case of the plaintiff.
259 on 12.3.1986 to the respondent through its sole proprietor Om Prakash Saharan.
The appellant thereupon issued various numberices to the allottee.
The defendant filed a written statement companytending that the plot in question was resumed on 13.9.1991 in view of the plaintiff companytravening the terms of the allotment and possession was taken back on 25.9.1991.
This fact is number in dispute.
It was also admitted in the plaint that there might have been an order of resumption of the plot, but if there was any such order, it was illegal, void and ineffective and number binding on the rights of the plaintiff because of lack of opportunity of hearing given to the plaintiff.
Some companyrespondence with some officers of the appellant regarding the removal of the electric pole was relied on to say that outside the written agreement, the appellant had agreed to get the electric pole and overhead line removed.
Om Parkash Saharan in whose name the allotment was made did number go to the box.
The letter of allotment was issued on 24.12.1987.
The plaintiff was informed that in case numbersatisfactory explanation was received within the period specified, the Corporation would be companystrained to resume the plot without making any further reference to the plaintiff.
In the box, P.W. 6 admitted that the companypany had received the letter warranting of the proposal to resume the plot because of its failure to fulfil the companydition of allotment.
The defendant filed a Second Appeal.
3940 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.11683 of 2006 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
The same was rejected.
The approximate area of the plot is 1000 square meters and the tentative price was Rs.
8 of 1995 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant appellant from interfering, disturbing or in any manner tampering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute, and restraining the defendant appellant from re allotting the plot in question to any other person on the basis of the resumption order, if any, or otherwise.
He pleaded ignorance of the fact that the plot in question was re allotted to another Om Parkash, son of Arjan Lal and that possession had been given to him since 2.9.1994.
Exhibit PW4/16, the letter dated 1.4.1991 sent in reply to the above letter dated 4.3.1991 after acknowledging the threat of resumption stated that the plaintiff was quite eager and sincere in its desire to set up an industrial unit but since Shri Om Parkash Saharan, who signed the letter, was under severe stress and strain due to a serious accident which made him almost incapacitated for a long period, he companyld number take effective steps to undertake the work, and that the plaintiff hoped to take up the work and companyplete it in four months and praying that some more time may be allowed for that purpose.
He gave evidence to the effect that the plot in dispute was allotted to Om Parkash Saharan.
Though there was numberprayer regarding any resumption order, it was asserted that the resumption order, if any passed by the defendant was void, illegal, number est and number binding upon the plaintiff in any manner.
The Agreement also provided that failing companypliance with the above companydition by the allottee, the plot was liable to be resumed and 10 of the companyt of the plot deposited by the allottee at the time of allotment was liable to be forfeited.
The companyrespondence produced by the plaintiff also indicates that there was numberstipulation outside the terms of the written allotment letter about any promise of removal of any electrical pole or electrical line passing over the plot in question.
He stated that he knew Om Parkash Saharan since 1983.
Since the plaintiff had defaulted, the plot had been rightly resumed.
According to the appellant, possession was taken back on 20.9.1991.
He admitted that one week prior to the institution of the present suit, the plaintiff came to know that defendant had resumed the plot in dispute and had also prepared a report that possession had been taken back.
That request was rejected.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
He had been appointed as General Power of Attorney by the said Om Parkash Saharan on 9.4.1996.
The appellant allotted plot No.
The plaintiff was number in posssession.
On 5.10.1995, the respondent filed the present suit No.
In spite of such glaring factors emerging, the trial companyrt proceeded to accept the story of the plaintiff that it had number been given numberice of the resumption of the land and that it companytinued to be in possession and that there was a companydition for removal of the electric pole and the electrical line and since the pole and the line were removed only by 30.11.1995, the plaintiff had time to take up the project thereafter.
The plaint was signed by one Uma Shankar who was said to be a power of attorney of the plaintiff firm.
There was numberstipulation or companydition in the allotment that the appellant had the obligation to remove the electric post located in the plot or the overhead electrical line.
It is also seen from an earlier letter PW 4/6 dated 27.3.1991, that the appellant had specifically brought to the numberice of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had companytravened the terms of the agreement by number taking up the companystruction and calling upon the plaintiff to show cause within 35 days why the plot of land should number be cancelled.
On behalf of the plaintiff, one Jai Bhagwan was examined as P.W. 6.
On 19.7.1991, the allottee requested for extension o time.
Om Parkash Saharan was the sole proprietor of the business of the plaintiff companypany.
The companystruction had to be companypleted and the installation of the machinery had also to be companypleted and the companymercial production was to be started within a period of two years from the date of allotment.
The defendant in Suit No.
8 of 1995 in the companyrt of Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon is the appellant in this appeal.
He asserted that the plaintiff had number surrendered the possession of the suit property and the plaintiff was in possession till date.
