DRS PLASTCHEM PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court praying for :- Issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing of the resumption order dtd. 13/3/2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 as well as quashing of order of the Appellate Authority dtd. 10/1/2023 (Annexure P-11) and further prayed for directing the respondents to restore the resumed site in favour of the petitioner

(2.) The plot bearing No. 483, Sector 8, Phase IV, IMT Manesar measuring 1012.50 square meters was allotted to the original allottee M/s Sunbeam Construction Pvt. Ltd. for setting up fabrication workshop. The Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) was issued on 13/12/2004 and the possession of the plot was offered on 1/4/2006. Thereafter, the plot was re-allotted to the present petitioner on 1/7/2011. The plot was resumed by the Estate Manager, HSIIDC, Manesar on 13/3/2020 vide letter bearing memo No. 3993 on the ground of default in payment of enhanced compensation and maintenance charges. In this regard, show cause notices dtd. 8/7/2015, 10/11/2015, 23/7/2019 and 9/9/2019 were issued to the petitioner. But as per the record, no reply was given by the petitioner. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner on 30/7/2019, 11/11/2019 and 29/11/2019 but no one appeared at the time of hearing on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the plot was resumed on 13/3/2020 on account of non-payment of the enhanced compensation. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of resumption dtd. 13/3/2020 was also dismissed vide order dtd. 10/1/2023 (Annexure P-11) by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the resumption order (Annexure P-3) was passed by respondent No.3 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in a very cursory manner, without dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner in the appeal (Annexure P-4). He further relies upon State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, 1967 AIR 1269 to contend that the impugned resumption order and the show cause notice dtd. 9/9/2019 mentioned in the resumption order was never served upon the petitioner. As such, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner had not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned resumption order dtd. 13/3/2020 (Annexure P-3). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Nisha vs. State of Punjab 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 40, to contend that without furnishing the details of enhancement to the petitioner the impugned orders ought not to have been passed. As such, the resumption order is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court Ajay Singh Mann v State of Haryana and Ors, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 474, Kalyan Singh and another v Estate Officer Chandigarh and others, 2014(5) RCR (Civil) 600, Smt. Fana alias Maina Devi and others vs. The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 887. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 put in appearance on having been served with the advance copy of the writ petition asserts that the petitioner, had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 14038 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 14/7/2022 which is reproduced as under:-