NAVEEN KUMAR BATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief, the case set out in the petition is that vide letter of allotment dtd. 12/4/2001 (P-1), the petitioner was allotted an Industrial Plot No. 199, Sector-25, Part-II, Panipat, measuring 300 square meter. The tentative price of the subject site/plot was Rs.2,70,000.00. And, 10% of which, i.e. Rs.27,000.00, was remitted by the petitioner, along with an application, as earnest money. He was required to deposit a further sum of Rs.40,500.00, within 30 days, which constituted 25% of the total tentative price. The balance 75% of the consideration could be remitted in five half yearly installments. In terms of clause 17 (i) of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to start construction of a building within a period of one year, as per the approved building plans, from the issuance of letter of allotment/offer of possession. However, it was only on 14/9/2005, he was delivered the actual physical possession of the subject site/plot. And, soon thereafter, he submitted the building plans for approvals/sanctions. Which were approved/sanctioned on 22/12/2005. Upon which, he started constructing the site. For he completed construction up to the plinth level, he was issued a DPC certificate dtd. 8/12/2006 (P-3), by the Junior Engineer, Estate Office, Panipat. He applied for a water connection, after depositing the requisite fee/security, on 18/12/2006, which was sanctioned by the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Panipat, vide Memo No. 477, dtd. 4/1/2007 (P-4). Similarly, for supply of electricity, an electric meter was also installed in the premises on 8/2/2007, by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. For the entire construction at site was complete, per the format (form BR-IV), he, on 19/6/2007, applied for completion certificate. But, vide letter dtd. 21/6/2007, he was required to submit a rain water harvesting certificate, which was submitted. However, it was, at that stage, he was verbally informed that the subject site/plot had since been resumed on 29/12/2005 (P-5). For the petitioner had failed to construct the site and start production within the stipulated time, per the letter of allotment. Even otherwise, action of the respondent-authorities was apparently unjust and irrational, for the building plans were approved on 22/12/2005 and within seven days, vide order dtd. 29/12/2005, the site/plot was resumed. For the petitioner was never served with the order of resumption, he applied for a copy of the order on 4/6/2007, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. And after obtaining the same, he preferred an appeal under Sec. 17 (5) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, ('the 1977 Act'), before the Administrator, HUDA. Upon consideration of the matter, the Appellate Authority, concluded that although, the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms/conditions of the allotment letter, and despite the order of resumption, he carried out construction over the resumed site, but now that the subject site was fully constructed, vide order dated 08/10/1/2008 (P-6), the order of resumption was set aside. Though, it was observed that the Junior Engineer, who had issued the DPC certificate and allowed the site to be constructed, was liable for a disciplinary action under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained the occupation certificate dtd. 23/10/2008 (P-7), and since then, he was/is running an industrial unit at site.

(2.) However, being aggrieved, the respondent authorities assailed the order dated 08/10/1/2008 (ibid), in revision under Sec. 17(8) of the 1977 Act. And, the Revisional Authority, vide order dtd. 27/4/2011 (P-8), in complete disregard to the true and actual situation, as also the law, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. But, since the order dtd. 27/4/2011 was never communicated to the petitioner at any stage, he remained oblivious of any such order. Which is why, it was after a delay of about five years, the petitioner, through his General Power of Attorney (Sushil Kumar), assailed the said order vide CWP-5530-2016. And, vide an interim order, this Court required him to place on record the memorandum/grounds of appeal (ibid), to ascertain, whether it was he or his GPA, in his personal capacity, had filed the appeal against the order of resumption. Further, vide another order, he was directed to furnish an affidavit, if each of the proceedings/stages in the proceedings were adopted by him or his constituted attorney on his behalf or by the constituted attorney on his own behalf. However, on 8/8/2016, the petitioner withdrew the said petition with liberty to file afresh with better particulars. Whereafter, he, through his GPA, filed CWP-20436-2016, which too was withdrawn on 19/1/2017. But, with liberty to the original allottee to file afresh. A third petition (CWP-9627-2017), filed by the petitioner, was also withdrawn, since he intended to move the Revisional Authority and seek review of the order dtd. 27/4/2011. But, since the review application moved by the petitioner was dismissed on 30/10/2017 (P-19), without affording him a hearing, he was constrained to approach this Court yet again vide CWP-27778-2017. Accordingly, the said petition was disposed of on 18/12/2017 (P-20), requiring respondent No. 1 to re-decide the review application. But, once again, respondent No. 1, vide order dtd. 10/12/2019 (P-21), declined to review the order dtd. 27/4/2011, for there was no provision for review, under the 1977 Act. This impelled the petitioner to again approach this Court vide CWP-9214-2020. Initially, on 6/7/2020, this Court had issued notice to the respondents. But, vide order dtd. 1/5/2023 (P-25), the petition was disposed of, since the petitioner intended to pursue the matter with the concerned department itself. However, vide order dtd. 14/12/2023 (P-26), the Additional Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, dismissed the appeal (No.50 of 2023), filed by the petitioner. Whereafter, he also moved an application, seeking recalling of the said order. But that too was dismissed on 18/3/2024 (P-27). And, now that the respondent- Corporation, vide communication dtd. 10/4/2024 (P-28), required the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the subject site/plot to the Estate Manager, HSIIDC, Panipat: thus, this petition.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not in dispute that the petitioner, per the letter of allotment, had deposited the total sale consideration/premium, in time. It is urged that the building plans were sanctioned on 22/12/2005, but, surprisingly, within seven days, on 29/12/2005, the site was resumed, for the petitioner had failed to construct the same and start commercial production, per the conditions of the allotment. He submitted that the specific case set out by the petitioner is that he was never served with the order of resumption dtd. 29/12/2005. And, in fact, neither was he served with any notice, nor was afforded any hearing, before the said order was passed by the authorities. Resultantly, being oblivious of any such development, the petitioner, soon after the building plans were sanctioned, started construction. And, as indicated earlier, for the construction, up to plinth level, was complete, he was issued the DPC certificate dtd. 8/12/2006. Further, after the site was fully constructed, he, on 19/6/2007, applied for completion certificate. And it was, at that stage, he learned that the subject site had already been resumed. But, as indicated earlier, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of resumption. Whereupon, a conveyance deed No. 645 dtd. 30/4/2008 was executed in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat. Not only that, on 23/10/2008, he was also issued the occupation certificate. However, the Revisional Authority, vide impugned order dtd. 27/4/2011, affirmed the order of resumption. Be that as it may, it is submitted that an industrial unit, being run by the petitioner at site, is fully functional. In this regard, attention of the Court was drawn to the VAT certificate(s), appended with the petition as P- 13. Further, the electricity meter was installed in the premises and the petitioner also possessed the GST number. And, finally, he submitted that resumption, being the last resort, ought to be ordered only in extreme cases, and the matter at hand was certainly not the case, where the order of resumption passed by the authorities could be justified. Accordingly, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2004) 2 SCC 130, as also the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dheera Singh Vs. U.T., Chandigarh Administration and others, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 970. Similarly, he also relied upon the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, 2009 (5) RCR Civil) 673; Veena Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2017 (5) RCR (civil) 85.