These plots are allotted at a very reasonable rate companycessional rate with a view to provide incentives to the allottees entrepreneurs with intent to encourage industrialization and growth in employment opportunities.
As pointed out earlier, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, one Rakesh Sarna claiming himself as General Power of Attorney filed the reply dated 14.11.2003.
During the pendency of said appeal, the application was moved on 07.03.2006 to the effect that the appellant Satyawati had expired on 03.10.2005 leaving behind a will dated 02.09.2005 in favour of her four children namely the appellants.
The said application was allowed and the appellants were impleaded as parties.
In the said reply, the said Rakesh Sarna GPA stated that they would companystruct the building within six months from the date of receipt of the missing documents.
It is the companytention of the appellants that the default was number wilful and extreme step of resumption of land ought number to have been resorted by HUDA.
The terms and companyditions of the allotment letter, specifically Condition No.18, required the allottee to companyplete the companystruction over the allotted plot within two years of the date of offer of possession after companypleting the necessary formalities governing the companystruction of the building otherwise the plot was liable to be resumed and the whole or any part of the money in respect of the same is liable to be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977.
These allotments are number only governed by the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy of the State of Haryana.
As pointed out earlier, the allotment of industrial plot was with the twin objects of economic development and generation of adequate employment.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the appellants filed Writ Petition C No.19256 of 2014 before the High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.09.2014.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2018.10.25 Brief facts of the case which led to filing of this appeal are that 162529 IST Reason Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula was allotted to Rabinder Nath, in his capacity as MD of M s Shiva Dairy Oil Mills vide Memo No.21015 dated 25.07.1984 and the possession of the said plot was given on 19.09.1984.
In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna GPA only took excuse for number construction of the building and number production stating that original documents like i Allotment Letter ii Possession Letter No Due Certificate iv Deed of Conveyance v Occupation Certificate and vi Building Plans were missing and he has asked for issuance of duplicate companyies of relevant documents.
One Rakesh Sarna claiming to be the Power of Attorney sent the reply dated 14.11.2003 saying that the original documents are missing and requested for issuance of duplicate companyies.
The order of the Appellate authority dated 11.01.2008 was assailed by the appellants before Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Department of Town and Country Planning and Urban Estates the Revisional authority under Section 30 2 of HUDA Act, 1977 and the same was dismissed by order dated 15.04.2014 inter alia on the following grounds That the allotment of industrial plot was made at companycessional rates with a view to generate employment for the unemployed and keeping in view the economic development of the State and the allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial plot by number companymencing the production for twenty years from the date of allotment and delivery of possession That the revision preferred by the appellants is barred by limitation having been filed after a delay of one year and three months and that too without any application for companydonation of delay and That the plot was allotted to M s Shiva Dairy Oil Mills and the appellants companyld number show how they stepped into the shoes of the firm and it was an act of the appellants to appropriate the plot to the exclusion of the legal heirs of the partners of the firm.
Not being satisfied with the reply received, the allottee was offered an opportunity of personal hearing vide Memo dated 06.01.2004.
The allotment of industrial plot was at companycessional rate and was subject to terms and companyditions and the allottee was bound to companyply with the terms and companyditions.
The appellants seem to have woken upon only after issuance of the Show Cause Notice.
In order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial policy was framed by the State of Haryana aiming at balanced regional development and with a view to generate adequate employment.
The said Rakesh Sarna GPA appeared and gave a written reply.
Since the allottee Rabinder Nath NRI did number companyply with the terms and companyditions of the allotment and did number companymence the production within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice dated 26.08.2003 was issued to the allottee under Section 17 4 of the HUDA Act, 1977.
The allotment of the industrial plot in question to Rabinder Nath as MD of M s Shiva Dairy Oil Mills was subject to the terms and companyditions of the allotment.
The appellants have admittedly number companymenced the industrial production on the plot for twenty long years after allotment and delivery of possession.
The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.3 Administrator, HUDA vide order dated 11.01.2008 on the ground that the appellants did number start the companystruction as well as the production over the plot in question and the appellants have number been able to give even a single reason for number starting companystruction as well as production for a long time of twenty years.
On perusal of the reply dated 14.11.2003 and report submitted by the Junior Engineer of HUDA, the Estate Officer, HUDA held that the allottee failed to companymence the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and vide order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting 10 per cent of the companysideration money.
Being aggrieved by the order of resumption of plot, Satyawati wife of Rabinder Nath through her GPA Rakesh Sarna filed appeal under Section 17 5 of the HUDA Act, 1977 before the appellate authority Administrator, HUDA.
In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna GPA has number stated anything about the illness or the disability of Satyawati.
Evidently, there is breach of companydition of allotment of the plot.
The said Rakesh Sarna GPA further stated that they would companystruct the building within six months from the date of receipt of missing documents.
It was held that the reasons stated by the power of attorney that the original papers were lost somewhere in September, 2003 does number carry any weight for explaining the delay of twenty years.
Satyawati Devi w o Rabinder Nath who became the sole proprietor of M s Shiva Dairy Oil Mills also remained disabled and she was also detected with cancer in 2004 and she was getting disability allowance from 1992 to 2003 as per the documents on record.
Contention of the appellants is that Rabinder Nath NRI , MD of M s Shiva Dairy Oil Mills who was allotted the plot, was detected with cancer and died of cancer in 1987.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.19256 of 2014 in and by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants thereby upholding the orders of the Authorities resuming the Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula allotted to M s. Shiva Dairy Oil Mills.
Letter of allotment was subject to the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority HUDA Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations applicable thereunder as amended from time to time and also the Industrial Policy of the State of Haryana.
