ARIHANT COM. COMPLEX Vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayer to direct the respondent Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioners and restore back the possession of the industrial plot Nos.101/C, 101/B, C2791 and C2838 admeasuring 875, 875, C 2791 and 1125 square meters respectively situated at Lodhika GIDC Industrial Estate, Rajkot on lines of other identical cases as per the policy of the GIDC in the interest of justice.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioner applied for allotment of Plots situated at Lodhika GIDC Industrial Estate, Rajkot on 25.06.1999. The respondentCorporation accepted the proposal of the petitioners and directed them to make payment of 50% of the total amount within 30 days after deducting deposit and remaining 50% was directed to be paid in 12 monthly equal installments with 16% interest. As agreed above, the petitioners paid amount of Rs.1,86,375/, Rs.1,86,375/, Rs.2,62,125/ and Rs.2,39,625/ respectively and by order 04.04.2000 the respondent Corporation allotted the plots and on 04.09.2000 agreements were executed with the respondent Corporation by the respective petitioner. The petitioners could not make payment of the installments regularly due to critical economic conditions and the respondent No.3 by order dated 04.04.2002 cancelled the allotment letters on the ground of nonpayment of installments by the petitioners and took the possession of the plots of the petitioners. The petitioners made requests to restore back the possession of the plots to the respondentCorporation in the year 2006 by preferring applications. However, the respondentCorporation initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1972 and passed orders which were never served upon the petitioners and the petitioners came to know about such order only when public notice dated 22.12.2009 was issued in the local daily newspaper. The petitioners, therefore, filed Regular Civil Appeals in the court of learned District Judge, Rajkot along with applications for condonation of delay and the learned District Judge, Rajkot, however, rejected the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners. Hence, the present petitions.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the respondentCorporation submits the respondent ­ Corporation will consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law.