3,96,000/ being 10 per cent of the total companyt of the said plot.
The amount of Rs.
Indisputably, Respondent No.
The first installment will fall due after the expiry of six months of the date of issue of this letter.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition.
The said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the order of resumption was number final.
25 of the companystruction had been companypleted and despite the same the land was said to have been resumed without issuing any show cause numberice although the respondent had already deposited the said sum.
On 23.8.04, the respondent remitted 15 of the companyt of the plot.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Appellant issued two show cause numberices to the respondent dated 14.8.00 and 26.2.01 for its failure to companymence companystruction.
On receipt of the aforesaid companymunication, the petitioner firm shall be required to clear all the aforesaid outstanding dues also, within a further period of two weeks thereof.
It thus requested for a refund.
Respondent on grounds of illness of his mother and other financial companystraints requested for an extension to companymence companystruction.
Aggrieved by the two orders, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
Regarding the balance amount, enclosed please find Demand Draft No.
9,08,461/ were returned.
Being dissatisfied by the reply so rendered by the respondent, the appellant gave the respondent an opportunity of retaining the plot by allowing him to companyvey his acceptance to buy the plot at the current price of Rs.
The High Court companyld number have re written the companytract.
Thereafter, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal.
On 18.1.00, on a request made by the respondent, the allotment of the said plot was changed due to a change in the companystitution of the respondents companypany.
The SLP preferred thereagainst has been dismissed.
In response thereto, the respondent was asked to clear the outstanding dues in regard to the second installment.
Respondent, thereafter applied for grant of water companynection on 1.7.2004.
Allegedly, a dispute arose as regards handing over of the actual possession of the said plot.
On receipt of the entire payment, the actual physical possession of the plot in question shall be handed over to the petitioner.
The Allotment Committee of the Corporation having found the respondent to be eligible for allotment, allotted plot No.
Vide its letter dated 19.4.06, the appellant informed the respondent that the companymissioner had dismissed his appeal by an order dated 13.1.06 on the ground that it was devoid of any merit.
At the time of handing over of possession, the area of the land, measurement thereof as also the boundaries were delineated.
269 in Sector 7 on or about 9.7.2004.
On 27.6.2005, the objections were dismissed by the appellant on the ground that the said plot had become liable for resumption.
Allegedly, an authorization letter dated 10.2.04 was issued to the respondent for taking over the physical possession.
However, the said subsequent allottee was number impleaded as a party.
The writ petition was filed in July, 2005.
1 intimated about the change of the companystitution of its firm.
Vide its letter dated 28.8.06, the appellant informed the respondent that the companymissioner had dismissed his appeal by an order dated 1.8.06 on the ground that it was devoid of any merit.
Respondent, however, was asked to take physical possession of the land and also to apply for extension for the purpose of starting companystruction by the Estate Manager of the appellant Corporation by a letter dated 24.4.2003.
From an internal companymunication dated 21.7.2004, however, it appears that building plans were number processed on the premise that ownership clearance had number companye from the Corporation.
The payment shall be made by the Bank Draft payable to the HSIDC, Panchkula and drawn on any scheduled bank at Panchkula.
16541 of 2006 HSIDC v. S.R. Polysteel Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot in Industrial Estate IMT, Manesar, by the Appellant Corporation.
16708 of 2006 HSIDC v. M s. Dulari Exports Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its allotment letter dated 14.6.2000 at IMT, Manesar.
Indisputably, the appellant offered the respondent possession of the plot and asked to companymence companystruction by its letters dated 19.12.2001, 9.8.2002 and 11.11.2003.
The first installment will fall due after the expiry 6 six months of the date of issue of this letter.
Each installment would be recoverable together with the interest on the balance price at 15 interest on the remaining amount the interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Respondent No.
The High Court directed Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as numbericed in the above portion of the judgment, we allow the present petition and restore the allotment of plot No.
Allegedly, the order of resumption was passed against the respondent without a personal hearing.
10,69,200/ of the tentative price of the plot can be paid in lumpsum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in six 6 half yearly installments.
Aggrieved by the order of the companymissioner, on 4.9.06, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
It was pointed out that the sum of Rs.
Respondents in their show cause, brought the aforementioned fact to the numberice of the companycerned authority of the appelalnt.
The allotment of the said plot was cancelled on the premise that payment has number been made in terms of Clauses 4 and 5 of the offer of allotment dated 18.07.2003.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The Corporation, however, by a letter dated 13.07.2004 asked the firm as to what steps had been taken by it for companystructions of the plot in question with documentary proof as also need to apply for extension on the premise that offer of possession was issued on 1.01.2002 and the companystruction activity, thus, was required to be started within one year therefrom and production of the Unit should have been started from the date of offer of possession.
Feeling aggrieved by the order, the respondent herein filed a Writ petition before the High Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent on 11.11.1999 filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner Industries.
Respondent had already appointed an architect for companystruction of the building.
Allegedly, the petitioner requested the appellant vide its letters dated 15.6.04 and 05.7.04 to change the site of the plot on the ground that the area where it was so situated was number developed.
9,08,461/ had been remitted.
4530 of 2005.
2331 of 2007 HSIDC v. Matesh Kumar Katyal Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment RLA dated 9.4.01 at Kundli Industrial Estate.
Indisputably, again the permission for companystruction of the buildings was to be granted only by the Corporation.
Allegedly, numberconstruction was started by the respondent.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
However, despite the same, letters were written by the appellant companymunicating the respondent in respect of certain errors in the building plans as would appear from the letters dated 8.4.2005 and 10.11.2005.
Indisputably, on 24.12.01, the appellant issued a receipt for acceptance of three demand drafts to the respondent towards payment of the installments.
On the premise that respondent has number companyplied with the terms and companyditions of the agreement, a numberice was issued on 17.4.2003.
Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment dated 29.8.2001 at IMT, Manesar.
The High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that an appeal was pending before an appropriate authority, however allowed the respondent to file its objections against the order of resumption.
Being aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dismissing the appeal, on 9.10.06, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
Respondent filed a further reply on 22.12.2004.
14,30,940/ had already been deposited.
The respondents in their rejoinder averred Upon cancellation of the allotment of plot in question, the said plot was included in the list of plots available for allotment and pursuant to invitation of applications for allotment of plots by way of advertisement in Newspapers, a draw of lots was held on 1.6.2004, wherein 215 residential plots including the plot in question were further allotted and the plot in question stands allotted to Shri Suresh Chand Jain s o Shri Hussan Lal Jain, resident of E 12, Bahubali Enclave, Near Geetanjli Apartments, Karkardooma, New Delhi.
Copy of the approval of the building plan is attached herewith for your reference.
He was allotted a plot No.
Each installments would be recoverable together with interest 15 interest per annum on the remaining amount as mentioned in clause No.
Aggrieved by the order and during the pendency of the appeal before the companymissioner, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court on 18.7.2005.
This clears our account as mentioned in your letter.
2702 of 2007 HSIDC v. At Home India P. Ltd. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment RLA dated 24.5.04 at IMT, Manesar.
2343 of 2007 HSIDC v. RMDK Projects Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment RLA dated 23.1.01 at IMT, Manesar.
In case of failure to deposit the said amount within the above specified period, the allotment shall be cancelled and the 10 earnest money deposited alongwith the application shall stand forfeited to the HSIDC against which you shall have numberclaim for damage.
An additional facility was granted to the industrial undertakings for allotment of residential plots for their directors.
Being aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dismissing the appeal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
m. wherefor a letter of allotment was issued on 10.01.2001.
On 18.11.2003, the respondent took physical possession of the plot.
A show cause numberice for resumption of the plot, however, was issued on or about 21.9.2004 alleging that companystruction work had number been started within a period of one and a half year of the handing over of the possession and some amount was outstanding.
Allegedly, the respondent by its letter dated 4.2.04 requested the appellant to hand over the possession of the plot.
Vide its letter dated 28.8.06, the appellant informed the respondent that the companymissioner had dismissed his appeal by an order dated 1.8.06 on the ground that it was devoid of any merit.
After being given a personal opportunity of hearing on 18.6.03, the appellant vide its letter dated 27.8.03 resumed the plot and requested the respondent to companylect the cheque of the amount deposited by him.
Respondent vide its letter dated 7.11.2003, requested for six months extension.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Admittedly, an appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed.
Respondents companytend that the entire 1st installment along with interest was duly paid within the stipulated time except for delay of 22 days.
He was, however, required to deposit the said amount by 22.7.2004 which was extendable by another 30 days on interest at 11 per annum after 22.7.2004, but he failed to do so.
It, however, was number satisfied with the said allotment.
Thereafter, a final Agreement was entered into between the parties on 24.9.01.
On 22.1.03, a show cause numberice was issued by the appellant to the respondent to explain why a resumption order should number be passed for number erection of the building within the stipulated time.
An assurance was given to start companystruction on clearance of building plan and ownership status.
On 25.2.06, the respondent requested for a personal hearing.
Pursuant to the show cause numberice dated 2.11.2004, a sum of Rs.
On 21.4.04, the appellant issued a show cause numberice to the respondent directing him to start companymence companystruction within a period of two years and to implement the project on or before 21.5.05.
The High Court while allowing the petition quashed the resumption order and directed the respondent to companyplete the companystruction of the industrial building within a period of six months from the date of offer of the possession of the plot.
Thereafter, on 7.10.2004, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent as to why an order of resumption should number be passed against him.
16711 of 2006 HSIDC v. Gopal Chand Kapoor Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment dated 26.6.2000 at IMT, Manesar.
After giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent, the said plot was resumed on 7.7.05.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Vide its letter dated 3.5.01 the appellant offered the respondent the physical possession of the plot.
The Corporation itself granted permission only on 20.03.2004 whereafter the companystruction started.
On 23.11.2004, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition directing the appellant to companysider and dispose off the objections.
It was previously known as M s. Dysa International Firm .
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said policy decision to grant additional benefit, the respondents were allotted residential plot No.
On 1.1.04, a show cause numberice was issued to the Respondent as to why the said plot should number be resumed in view of number commencement of companystruction and number payment of the 4th and 5th installments.
Respondents were number only aware of the terms of companytract, they acted thereupon and as such they are estopped and precluded from companytending that the date of actual handing over of physical possession would be the relevant date.
By an order dated 3.03.2005, however, the plot was said to have been resumed inter alia on the premise that Respondent number 1 had violated Clause 4 of the said Agreement.
9,08,461/ was number accepted and a cheque for a sum of Rs.
Due to unsatisfactory reply of the respondent by his letter dated 14.12.04, the appellant resumed the plot by its order dated 18.2.05.
Appellant took a stand that the letter of allotment elapsed automatically.
The resumption order was challenged before the Commissioner of Industries, who, vide its order dated 13.1.2006, dismissed the same.
The High Court by its order dated 28.7.2006, allowed the said Writ Petition and quashed the order of resumption.
Thereafter, a formal Agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the terms and companyditions of the RLA.
2200/ per sq.
Physical possession of the plot was taken over on 28.2.2003.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner.
By a letter dated 23.8.2004, respondent informed the companycerned authority that the request of clearance of ownership status was being pursued with the authorities of the appellant.
On 14.8.2000, a Regular Letter of Allotment was issued to the respondent which inter alia required it to companymence companystruction of the building within a period of one year and companymercial production within a period of three years from the date of offer of possession.
Allegedly, the respondent made several requests by its various letters dated 26.2.03, 07.5.03, 18.5.03, 20.6.03 and 29.8.03 for extension of time which was purportedly rejected or number companysidered by the appellant.
However, before resumption, an opportunity was given to the respondent to retain the plot at the current price of Rs.
Indisputably, it deposited a sum of Rs.
2891 of 2007 HSIDC v. Trikuta Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment RLA dated 30.6.99 at Industrial Estate, EPIP, Kundli.
However, the respondent failed to take over the possession.
On 12.7.05, the appellant issued a letter to the respondent intimating the withdrawal of the possession of the plot.
The balance 75 amount i.e. Rs.
Vide its letter dated 21.3.05 the appellant informed the respondent that his request had been rejected and refunded the amount so paid.
Vide its letter dated 18.1.05 the appellant passed an order of resumption of the plot against the respondent and refunded his cheque after making the necessary deductions.
On 19.1.05, the respondent requested the appellant to reconsider his case.
1 aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Industries which by its order dated 13.1.06, dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent on 28.9.03 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Industries.
6,83,349/ towards the refundable amount as also the demand draft for the said sum of Rs.
Two show cause numberices dated 1.3.05 and 19.5.05 were issued by the appellant to the respondent.
2200/ per sq.
On 17.1.2005, the appellant issued a show cause numberice to the respondent for delay in taking the physical possession of the plot and for number commencement of companystruction.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
On 11.04.01, a final agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the terms and companyditions of the allotment letter.
Allegedly, on 19.8.04, the respondent met the appellant for the change of plot who were then informed that the plot companyld number be changed.
Allegedly, the respondent made various requests to the appellant for delivering the physical possession of the plot after making necessary developments.
Subsequently, on 20.1.00, a supplementary agreement was entered into between the parties.
The High Court was of the opinion that although respondent was required to deposit 15 of the price of plot on or before 22.7.2004, but by clause 3 of the Letter of Allotment, the said amount companyld be deposited by him within 60 days.
meter.
On 19.12.01, the appellant issued a letter thereby offering the respondent physical possession of the plot.
The respondent intimated the appellant that the companystruction would start immediately and requested for a three year extension period.
1 through its lawyer dated 1.03.2005 inter alia drawing its attention to Actual physical possession had been handed over on 9.12.2003 and the building plans were approved by the Corporation on or about 20.03.2004.
By its order dated 25.8.06, the High Court set aside the Resumption order.
Building plans were re submitted by the respondent on 14.12.2005 whereto again some defects were pointed out therein.
Vide its letter dated 12.1.05, the appellant cancelled the allotment and refunded the amount paid by the respondent on the ground that he had failed to companyply with clause 3 of the Allotment letter providing for the payment and thus the RLA had lapsed automatically.
Vide its letter dated 31.1.05 the respondent informed the appellant that due to loss in its business, they were unable to companytinue industrial activity and had decided to surrender the plot.
In exercise of its functions, it also allots industrial plots to entrepreneurs for setting up their industries on numberprofit numberloss basis.
Respondent No.
Subsequently, the appellant by its letter dated 14.5.03, asked the respondent to attend its office to take over the possession of the plot.
By an order dated 7.3.2005, an order of resumption was issued.
He submitted his building plan on 10.7.2004.
On 5.12.06, the High Court set aside the order of resumption.
The High Court by its order dated 5.12.06 while allowing the Writ Petition, quashed the letter dated 12.1.05 and the appellate order on the premise that the respondent had always showed his eagerness to initiate companystruction and the delay in making the payment had been on account of a genuine belief by the respondent that the request for an alternative plot was pending before the appellant.
3,96,000/ was directed to be refunded.
Respondent No.
Upon the new Industrial Infrastructure Development Policy companying into force, the appellant extended the time for implementation of the project to three years i.e. up to 29.6.02.
The said clause was also incorporated in an Agreement dated 8.9.00 entered into between the two parties.
The same having number being accepted by the respondent, the objections were rejected by the appellant and the amount was refunded as per the terms of the Agreement.
It by a letter dated 30.11.2004 categorically stated We companyld number start the companystruction on the above mentioned plot, due to some financial companystraints.
On 26.2.04, the respondent filed its objections.
Alleging that the ownership is in dispute, the plan was number sanctioned.
Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of this score alone.
6,00,000/ was also returned.
They were, however, number satisfied with the said allotment and made another representation for change of plot.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent on 5.08.05 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Industries.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
An Agreement companytaining the terms and companyditions of the allotment was executed between the two parties on 12.9.2000.
On being unsatisfied by the reply of the respondent vide its letter dated 15.2.05 to the show cause numberice, the appellant passed an order of resumption of the plot on 7.7.05.
Despite being handed the possession on 17.6.03, numberconstruction was companymenced by the respondent.
No opportunity of personal hearing was granted.
Vide its letter dated 7.11.01, the respondent sought extension of time to start companystruction and companymercial production.
You are requested to remit Rs.
On 29.10.03, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent for failure to companymence companystruction.
It was companypleted in May, 2005.
On 8.5.2006, the High Court without going into the merits of the case, allowed the Writ Petition.
A proceeding for resumption was initiated and by an order dated 1.06.2004, the said plot was resumed.
The High Court, by its judgment and final order dated 27.11.06, set aside the order of resumption.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent on 14.1.05 filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner Industries.
On 8.1.03, a show cause numberice was issued by the appellant to the respondent regarding the failure to set up the industrial unit.
Respondent vide its letter dated 24.2.03 requested the appellant for handing over the possession.
The Town Planner of the appellant asked the Senior Manager of the Corporation to ascertain ownership status before the building plans companyld be cleared.
On 4.11.01, physical possession was offered to the respondent, which was number taken.
Since the petitioner was required to pay the entire amount, even by way of instalments upto January 16, 2007, therefore, the petitioner is directed to make the total payment of the entire amount towards the companyt of the plot in question within a period of three months from the date a certified companyy of this order is received.
The High Court, by its judgment and final order dated 12.12.06, set aside the order of resumption.
On or about 21.9.2004, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.
Respondents companytend that though a request was made to hand over possession by its letter dated 2.8.02 however, the same was number granted.
A Writ Petition was filed which by reason of the impugned judgment has been allowed.
1,78,200/ in order to make the 25 price of the said plot within 30 days upto 17.08.09 from the date of issue of this letter.
18011 of 2006 HSIDC v. G.M. Precision Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment RLA dated 13.3.02 at IMT, Manesar.
The petitioner shall, however, remain bound by all the terms and companyditions of the letter of allotment.
On 22.7.04, the RLA lapsed.
1 is a partnership firm.
000433 for Rs.
The respondent Corporation would be at liberty to inform the petitioner through a written companymunication, if there are still any outstanding dues against the petitioner firm.
It applied for allotment of 1000 sq.
As per the terms of the new Agreement, the respondent was to companymence companystruction within a period of six months.
Pursuant thereto physical possession was said to have been handed over on 6.5.2003.
After hearing the respondent in person, the appellant passed an order of resumption.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dismissing the appeal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot at Manesar, Gurgaon by the Appellant Corporation.
By an order dated 7.8.06, the High Court set aside the order of resumption.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Thereafter by its letter dated 15.2.05, the respondent gave an undertaking to the appellant to companymence companystruction immediately, if it delivered the possession of the plot.
Steps for companystruction had been intimated to the Corporation together with a letter for extension of time.
The interim order was passed directing the appellant to re allot the plot, however the same was number allotted.
The amount refunded by the Corporation to the petitioner shall be repaid to the Corporation within a period of two weeks from the date a certified companyy of this order is received.
In the Writ Petition inter alia a companytention was raised that the appellant had regularized the delay by extending the period of companystruction even for a period of four years in favour of the parties named therein which was number denied or disputed.
meter.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
It was requested that the excess period for starting companystruction may be waived by imposing some penalty.
The bank draft sent by the respondent for an amount of Rs.
On 12.4.02, a final Agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the terms and companyditions of the allotment letter.
On 16.7.02, the appellant issued a show cause numberice to the respondent for its failure to take possession and set up the industrial unit.
A demand draft of Rs.
Ltd. Company .
On the failure of the respondent to satisfy the companycerned authority with regard to the delay in companymencement of the companystruction, the plot was ordered to be resumed vide letter dated 28.2.05.
Being aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dismissing the appeal, on 25.6.06, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
The Company was allotted an industrial plot.
269, Sector 7, Manesar to the petitioner as per original terms of allotment.
Respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
17426 of 2006 HSIDC v. Prateek Industries Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment dated 22.10.1998 at Growth Centre Investate Bawal, District Rewari.
908461/ drawn on HDFC Bank.
A Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment while setting aside the order of resumption as also the order of the appellate authority dated 27.05.2005, directed The plot in question stands restored back to the petitioner.
Physical possession of the plot was offered on 21.5.02.
The said appeal was dismissed by the companymissioner on the basis that it was devoid of any merit.
The High Court accepted that there had been a delay on the part of the appellant.
The Corporation was asked to withdraw the said numberice of resumption.
On 2.11.04, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent on account of its failure to companymence companystruction and default in making the payment of the 4th and 5th installments.
A prayer was made to change the plot which was accepted by the appellant Corporation.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, a writ petition was filed.
In the meantime, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner by an Order dated 16.2.2006.
Despite the same, as numberaction was taken, a legal numberice was issued by the Respondent No.
8,91,000/ of the above price of the plot can be paid in lumpsum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in half yearly installments.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
6,00,000/ towards 15 of the total price of the plot.
The terms and companyditions provided for a schedule of payment, the relevant clauses whereof read as under The balance amount of Rs.
m. size plot in IMT, Manesar.
331 in Sector 1, Manesar.
On the other hand, on 24.2.03, the appellant issued a numberice to the respondent to show cause why the plot should number be resumed on account of its failure to companyply with the terms and companyditions of the allotment letter.
Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was disposed of on 8.08.2006 directing the allottee to appear before the Appellate Authority.
On 24.12.03, the appellant issued a show cause numberice to the respondent for failure to companymence companystruction as well as companymercial production within the stipulated time.
Subsequently, two more show cause numberices dated 13.10.03 and 8.12.03 were issued.
177 in Sector 6, IMT, Manesar measuring 1012.50 sq.
1 herein filed an application for companystruction of the building on 19.12.2003.
Aggrieved by the order of resumption, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Industries on 9.2.04.
