LexM.D., H.S.L.D.C. AND ORS. versus M/S. HARI OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 9 S.C.R. 821 ~ _... M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. A v M/S. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4089 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Industrial development: Power of the Corporation allotting industrial plots to re- sort to resumption of plot or forfeiture - Held: Ordinarily such c power should be exercised only as a last resort - Keeping in view fact that the Corporation is under obligation to comply with the principles of natural justice, Corporation is required to assign reasons as to why plot had to be resumed - While do- ing so it evidently is required to take into consideration its own D conduct - Construction over a plot can commence only when ... physical possession is handed over or plan for construction of the building is approved - The Corporation cannot ignore these relevant factors - However, if allottees fail to abide by the terms of the contract, the Corporation could resort to re- E sumption with due notice. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Jurisdiction of writ court - Held: Ordinarily ... J. in matter of enforcement of contract, writ court shall not exer- -- cise its jurisdiction under Article 226 - But where action of State F is violative of Article 14 and is wholly unfair and unreason- able, writ court would not hesitate to grant relief in favour of person where both law and equity demand that such relief should be granted - Each case must be considered on its own merit - Equity G .. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.14074 of 2006 . ~ The appellant-Corporation has been set up as a cata- 821 H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A lyst for promoting economic growth and accelerating the pace of industrialization and its principal function is allot- ment of industrial plots. Respondent no.1 applied for allotment of 1000 sq.m. It was issued letter of allotment on 10.1.2001. The possession was handed over only on B 8.12.2003. Respondent no.1 filed an application for con- struction of the building which was to be granted only by _... the Corporation. The Corporation granted permission only on 20.3.2004 whereafter construction started and it was completed in May, 2005. The Corporation sent notice c to respondent no.1 for resumption of plot on the premise that offer of possession was issued on 1.01.2002 and the construction activity, thus, was required to be started within one year therefrom and production of the Unit should have been started from the date of offer of pos- D session. On 3.3.2005, the plot was resumed on the premise that respondent had violated the terms of agreement. Appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed. Respon- dent filed writ petition before High Court which was al- E lowed and the plot was restored back to respondent. Hence the present appeal by Corporation. Civil Appeal@ SLP (C) No.19949 of 2006 Respondents are directors of the company which F was allotted an industrial plot. Corporation provided an additional facility for allotment of residential plots for their directors. Payments were made in the name of the Com- pany although allotment had been made in the individual names of the respondents. The allotment of the said plot G was cancelled on the premise that payment has not been made in terms of Clauses 4 and 5 of the offer of allotment dated 18.07.2003. A proceeding for resumption was initi- ated and by an order dated 1.06.2004, the said plot was resumed. Aggrieved respondents filed writ petition. Upon cancellation of allotment of plots in question, these plots H M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. MIS. HARi OM 823 ENTERPRISES AND ANR. ~ ~ were further allotted. However, the said subsequent allot- A tee were not impleaded as party. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the premise that the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,78,200/- and in view of Clause 3 of offer of allotment, it was for them to make payment in terms thereof. Hence the appeal. B Civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.19916 of 2006 Respondent applied for and was allotted an indus- trial plot by the Appellant Corporation. Indisputably, it de- posited a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- being 10 per cent of the c total cost of the said plot. It, however, was not satisfied with the said allotment. A prayer was made to change the plot which was accepted by the appellant Corporation. He was allotted an alternate plot. They were, however, not satisfied with the said all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.