Petitioner who virtually purchased a litigation has number reached the Supreme Court seeking special leave to appeal against a judgment by which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a Second Appeal, The suit was filed by M s York Printers and during its pendency the present petitioner bought the rights which the original plaintiff had in the subjeict matterof the suit for a companysideration of rupees forty thousand.
However, learned judge has observed the following The question in this case is number in regard to validity of the Sale of plot to second plaintiff by the allottee, but the question is whether second plaintiff has any locus standi to question the order of resumption which had been passed against the allottee, in my view second plaintiff has numberlocus standi to question the validity of order resuming the plot.
Learned Single Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the companytention of the petitioner that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is number a bar against transferring property pendente lite.
In fact the said plot was transferred by Haryana Urban Development Authority MUDA its acronym in favour of the Corporation for facilitating the objects and purposes of Haryana Urban Development Disposal of Land and Bulldings Regulation 1978.
metres has been allotted to M s York Printers which will hereinafter be referred to as the allottee as per a letter of allotment issued by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation United Corporation for short .
Trial companyrt decreed the suit and declared the resumption order as manifestly illegal and beyond jurisdiction.
But the Corporation was number satisfied with the reply and hence on 16.3.1984 the Corporation resumed the plot, The allottee thereafter made representation to the Corporation for revocation of the resumption order.
In the reply which allottee sent to the Corporation certain reasons were highlighted for showing why It companyld number companyplete companystruction of the building for the proposed industrial unit.
As the allottee falled to establish the industrial unit till the end of 1983 a numberice was issued by the Corporation on 6,1,1984 calling upon the allottee to show cause why the plot should number be resumed.
According to the allottee the companystruction work was actually companymenced but Its progress was hampered on account of power supply number being made available by Haryana State Electricity Board for more than two years, besides the difficulty regarding availability of water.
But the first appellate companyrt revised the decree and dismissed the suit holding that the Corporation was well within its power to resume end that the resumption was made in accordance with the terms of allotment.
M s York Printers filed the suit on the following facts On 28.7.1997 a plot of land admeasuring approximately 450 Sq.
This agreement was executed on 6 August, 1979 between the parties.
On companypletion of remittance of the entire amount payable by the allottee a registered Deed of Conveyance was executed on 10.12.1982 by the Corporation in favour of the allottee.
During pendency of the suit the petitioner got a registered sale deed from the Allottee on 27.12.1989 of his rights in respect of the plot in question and got herself impleaded as second plaintiff in the suit.
However, the Corporation was unwilling to revoke the resumption order and hence the representations made by the allottee were rejected.
On 3.8.1985 the allottee filed the civil suit for a declaration that the order of resumption is illegal and void and also for certain other companysequential reliefs.
The said site situated in the industrial area was to be used for the purpose of industry only, the terms and companyditions relating to the said sale were settled in the agreement to sell.
Since the allottee failed to abide by the terms and companyditions of allotment, plot was rightly resumed by HSIDC.
Petitioner cannot escape from the position that he is to abide by the terms and companyditions of the agreement admitted to have been executed between the parties.
The first appellate companyrt further found that the petitioner has numberfocus stanch as the sale in her favour was.
The price for such allotment was tentatively fixed as Rs.l3,455/ and the allottee was put in possession thereof.
Petitioner got himself Impleaded as additional plaintiff and from then on It was the petitioner who fought the litigation, as the original plaintiff has vacated from the scene.
The said plot is situated within the industrial companyplex at Dundahera in Gurgaon District Haryana .
Contract was between allottee and HSIDC and the same was subject to fulfillment of certain terms and companyditions by the allottee.
There have been numberprivity of companytract between second plaintiff and HSIDC.
In the Second Appeal petitioner assailed the said findings before the High Court.
