BANARSIDASS MUSADILAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was desirous of setting up an industrial unit for manufacturing corrugated card-board boxes. With this end in view, he made an application on May 21, 1976 for allotment of a plot admeasuring 420 sq. mtrs. to the 2nd respondent which was set up by the 1st respondent under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. After processing the application, petitioner was called upon by the 2nd respondent to deposit 20% of the total premium as reserve money for the plot applied for by the Petitioner @ Rs. 40 per sq. mtr. In compliance with this request, the petitioner deposited the requisite amount on October 19, 1977. Thereafter a plot bearing No. 72 situated in Block 'G' Sector 6. Noida. Ghaziabad admeasuring 372.10 sq. mtrs. @ Rupees 40 per so. mtr. was allotted to the petitioner as per allotment letter Annexure P-4. The petitioner was then called upon to execute a license agreement and get the same registered on or before January 12, 1978. He was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1105.20 P. as 30% of the allotment money. Petitioner deposited the requisite amount on January 12, 1978. Thereafter the petitioner was put in possession of the plot on May 12, 1978. Subsequently by February 27, 1980, petitioner paid Rs. 73,000 being full and final payment in respect of price of the plot allotted to him. However, in April, 1980, petitioner received a letter from the 2nd respondent threatening to cancel the allotment of the plot and he was called upon to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. Presumably the reason for threatened action was that the petitioner had not put up an industrial unit as promised by him. It appears that petitioner wanted to gain time to acquire experience for setting up the industrial unit which he proposed to set up. On June 19, 1981, the 2nd respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why even though he was put in possession on May 12, 1978, he has not completed the construction as per the agreement entered into by him with the 2nd respondent and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. The 2nd respondent granted extension of time to the petitioner to put up construction up to the plinth level by September 30, 1981 and the time was further extended up to December 31, 1981.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner could not keep up the time-bound programme and on May 29, 1982 informed the respondents that he was suffering from Disc Prolapse and that he has been advised rest in bed for 6 months and on this ground sought further extension of time. This request appears to have fallen on deaf ears and by the letter dated June 8, 1982 the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that since the construction of the factory building on the plot allotted to him has not been completed within the initially stipulated or the extended time, the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner was called upon to make representation, if any, he wanted to make against the proposed action within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. The petitioner apprehending danger to his possession approached this Court by this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

(3.) A notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and in the meantime ex parte stay against dispossession was granted.