BAZAZ ORIENT TEPPICHE Vs. HUDA, PANCHKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction for quashing of order dated 17.12.1999 (Annexure P4), vide which, the industrial site No.59, Sector 29, Urban Estate, HUDA, Panipat allotted to the petitioner has been ordered to be resumed. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P7), whereby appeal against the order dated 17.12.1999 has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner, who is claiming to be a Government recognized Export House, has filed the present writ petition through its partner Shri Maharaj K. Bhat. The plot No.59, Sector 29, Urban Estate, Panipat measuring 1025 square yards was originally allotted to M/s Glory Knitwares and thereafter, this plot was re -allotted to the petitioner vide re -allotment letter dated 8.3.1995 (Annexure P2) on the laid down terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, "the HUDA Act") and the instructions/guidelines and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, as amended from time to time. Pursuant to re -allotment of the plot, the possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 6.1.1998 (Annexure P3). As per the allotment letter, the allottee was to complete the construction within two years from the date of offer of possession, however, due to non -construction of the building, the said plot was resumed vide order dated 17.12.1999 (Annexure P4). While ordering resumption of the plot in question, respondent no.2 has also ordered forfeiture of 10% of the total cost of the plot as per the industrial policy.

(3.) THE order of resumption (Annexure P4) was made subject matter of challenge by way of appeal. But the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2000 with the observations that the petitioner has failed to complete the construction despite having been granted extension upto 7.3.1998 and as the petitioner has not obtained the occupation certificate of the building constructed by him and the industrial unit has not been started by the petitioner.