DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 25-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 10718 of 2018)
OCTOBER 25, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977: s. 17(4) –
Resumption of plot – Allotment of industrial plot, however non-
commencement of production by allottee for a period of almost 20
years – Resumption of plot by the Estate Officer – Upheld by the
Authorities and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Not
called for – Court can interfere with the revocation of resumption
of land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in
violation of the procedure – Terms and conditions of allotment
clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions
of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance
with the provisions of s. 17 – Order of resumption of the plot was as
per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High
Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional
authority – Furthermore, land/industrial plots now becoming very
scarce, governed by the present Estate Management Procedure, the
allottees cannot seek for revocation of resumption by contending
that they are ready to pay the current market rate.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The allotment of the industrial plot to RN as
MD of M/S SD are not only governed by the provisions of the
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Rules
and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of
the industrial policy of the State of Haryana. The allotment was
also subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment. As per
clause (18) of the allotment, the allottee has to complete the
construction within two years from the date of offer of possession.
Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of breach of any other
condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in
accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act,
608
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 608
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
1977. The appellants have admittedly not commenced the
industrial production on the plot for twenty long years after
allotment and delivery of possession. The appellants seem to
have woken upon only after issuance of the Show Cause Notice.
Evidently, there is breach of condition of allotment of the plot.
[Para 10]  [615-B-C, F-G]
1.2 In reply to the Show Cause Notice, one RS claiming
himself as General Power of Attorney filed the reply. In the said
reply, RS (GPA) has not stated anything about the illness or the
disability of the sole proprieter. In the said reply, RS (GPA) only
took excuse for non-construction of the building and non-
production stating that original documents like Allotment Letter;
Possession Letter; No Due Certificate; Deed of Conveyance;
Occupation Certificate; and Building Plans were missing and he
has asked for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant documents;
and that they would construct the building within six months from
the date of receipt of missing documents. It cannot be understood
that why the said RS (GPA) should undertake to construct the
building within six months from the date of receipt of missing
documents. [Para 12]  [616-C-D]
1.3 The industrial plots were allotted at a very reasonable
rates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentives to the
allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growth
and economic development of the State and generation of
adequate employment opportunities. These allotments are not
only governed by the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of the
industrial policy of the State. Construction of building and
commencement of production are the integral part of the terms
and conditions of the order of allotment. In such kind of allotment
of industrial plots, based on government industrial policy with
twin objectives of economic development and generation of
adequate employment, sympathy cannot be the ground for
considering the case of the appellants as to their non-compliance
of the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty
long years after the allotment. The appellate and Revisional
authority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted for the
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
observation that the buildings were not constructed for twenty
long years

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.