DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 25 October 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 12 S.C.R. 608

[2018] 12 S.C.R.

DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS

A

v.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 10718 of 2018)

BOCTOBER 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 20Cyears – Resumption of plot by the Estate Officer – Upheld by theAuthorities and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Notcalled for – Court can interfere with the revocation of resumptionof land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted inviolation of the procedure – Terms and conditions of allotmentDclearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditionsof transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordancewith the provisions of s. 17 – Order of resumption of the plot was asper the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the HighCourt rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisionalauthority – Furthermore, land/industrial plots now becoming veryEscarce, governed by the present Estate Management Procedure, theallottees cannot seek for revocation of resumption by contendingthat they are ready to pay the current market rate.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

FHELD: 1.1 The allotment of the industrial plot to RN asMD of M/S SD are not only governed by the provisions of theHaryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Rulesand Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions ofthe industrial policy of the State of Haryana. The allotment wasalso subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment. As perGclause (18) of the allotment, the allottee has to complete theconstruction within two years from the date of offer of possession.Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of breach of any othercondition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land inaccordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, H

1977. The appellants have admittedly not commenced theindustrial production on the plot for twenty long years afterallotment and delivery of possession. The appellants seem tohave 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 claiminghimself as General Power of Attorney filed the reply. In the saidreply, RS (GPA) has not stated anything about the illness or thedisability of the sole proprieter. In the said reply, RS (GPA) onlytook 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 hehas asked for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant documents;and that they would construct the building within six months fromthe date of receipt of missing documents. It cannot be understoodthat why the said RS (GPA) should undertake to construct thebuilding within six months from the date of receipt of missingdocuments. [Para 12] [616-C-D]

1.3 The industrial plots were allotted at a very reasonablerates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentives to theallottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growthand economic development of the State and generation ofadequate employment opportunities. These allotments are notonly governed by the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules andRegulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of theindustrial policy of the State. Construction of building andcommencement of production are the integral part of the termsand conditions of the order of allotment. In such kind of allotmentof industrial plots, based on government industrial policy withtwin objectives of economic development and generation ofadequate employment, sympathy cannot be the ground forconsidering the case of the appellants as to their non-complianceof the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twentylong years after the allotment. The appellate and Revisionalauthority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted for the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aobservation that the buildings were not constructed for twentylong years after allotment. If the construction of the building wasreally complete, the appellants could have very well filed thecompletion certificate; but that was not done. [Para 15] [617-C-E]

B1.4 Even assuming that for some other allottees, order ofresumption of plot had been quashed/cancelled, the appellantscannot claim equality of treatment. Article 14 is a positive conceptand cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner.[Para19] [619-B-C]

CState of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011)3 SCC 436 : [2011] 2 SCR 704 – referred to.

1.5 When allotment of industrial plots is governed by EstateManagement Procedure-EMP, the prayer of the appellants thatthey are ready to pay the current market rate for the industrialDplot cannot be considered. The allotment of Industrial Plot toRN was in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s SD. The plotwas thus, allotted to the partnership firm. The appellants havenot been able to show as to how they stepped into the shoes ofthe partnership firm, apart from the mere fact that they are legalheirs of RN. At the time of making application for allotment ofEindustrial plot, the applicant has to clearly disclose all the factsregarding the type of industry to be started, licence if necessaryunder law, project report, estimated cost of project, detailsregarding time required in completing the project, details ofemployees required, source of fund etc. The project so submittedFis then approved by the competent authority after consideringits viability. The applicants are then issued letter of intent/provisional allotment letter with condition to complete the otherformalities within the stipulated period of time and after completionof formalities, regular allotment letter is issued in favour of theapplicant. The undertaking of the production as per the approvedGproject is the foundation for the allotment of the industrial plotswhich is with twin object of economic development and generationof employment opportunities. Over the years, the State hasundergone substantive changes and economic growth. Land/industrial plots now becoming very scarce, governed by theHpresent EMP, the appellants cannot seek for revocation of resumption by contending that they are ready to pay the currentmarket rate. [Para 20, 21] [620-B-F]

1.6 The court can interfere with the revocation ofresumption of land only if the executive has not carried out itsduty or acted in violation of the procedure. The terms andconditions of allotment clearly stipulates that in the event of breach

of any of the conditions of transfer, the Estate Officer may resumethe land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of theHUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumption of the plot is as perthe terms and conditions of the allotment order and the HighCourt rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisionalauthority. The appellants having failed before all the forumsincluding the High Court and also the Revisional authority, thereis no serious infirmity or illegality in the order of resumption ofthe plot. [Para 22] [620-G-H; 621-A]

Anup Chauhan v. The Financial Commissioner &Secretary and others CWP No.15672 of 2008; HaryanaUrban Development Authority, Faridabad & Anotherv. Mrs. Manu Gupta and another RSA No.908 of 2012– referred to.

Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and others(2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235 –distinguished.

Case Law Reference

[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235distinguishedPara 16

[2011] 2 SCR 704referred toPara 19

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10718of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2014 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 19256 of 2014.

Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Adv. for theappellants.

Gautam Sharma, Manish Paliwal, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs. forthe respondents.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 16.09.2014 passedby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWPNo.19256 of 2014 in and by which the High Court dismissed the WritBPetition filed by the appellants thereby upholding the orders of theAuthorities resuming the Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula allotted to M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills.

3. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of this appeal arethat Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula wasCallotted to Rabinder Nath, in his capacity as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy &Oil Mills vide Memo No.21015 dated 25.07.1984 and the possession ofthe said plot was given on 19.09.1984. Letter of allotment was subjectto the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations applicable thereunder asDamended from time to time and also the Industrial Policy of the State ofHaryana. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, specificallyCondition No.18, required the allottee to complete the construction overthe allotted plot within two years of the date of offer of possession aftercompleting the necessary formalities governing the construction of thebuilding; otherwise the plot was liable to be resumed and the whole orEany part of the money in respect of the same is liable to be forfeited inaccordance with the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977.

4. Since the allottee Rabinder Nath (NRI) did not comply withthe terms and conditions of the allotment and did not commence theproduction within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice datedF26.08.2003 was issued to the allottee under Section 17(4) of the HUDAAct, 1977. One Rakesh Sarna claiming to be the Power of Attorneysent the reply dated 14.11.2003 saying that the original documents aremissing and requested for issuance of duplicate copies. In the said reply,the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) stated that they would “construct theGbuilding within six months from the date of receipt of the missingdocuments.” Not being satisfied with the reply received, the allotteewas offered an opportunity of personal hearing vide Memo dated06.01.2004. The said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) appeared and gave a writtenreply. On perusal of the reply dated 14.11.2003 and report submitted bythe Junior Engineer of HUDA, the Estate Officer, HUDA held that theHallottee failed to commence the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and vide order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting10 per cent of the consideration money.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of resumption of plot, Satyawatiwife of Rabinder Nath through her GPA Rakesh Sarna filed appeal underSection 17(5) of the HUDA Act, 1977 before the appellate authority-Administrator, HUDA. During the pendency of said appeal, the applicationwas moved on 07.03.2006 to the effect that the appellant Satyawati hadexpired on 03.10.2005 leaving behind a will dated 02.09.2005 in favourof her four children namely the appellants. The said application wasallowed and the appellants were impleaded as parties. The appeal wasdismissed by respondent No.3-Administrator, HUDA vide order dated11.01.2008 on the ground that the appellants did not start the constructionas well as the production over the plot in question and the appellantshave not been able to give even a single reason for not starting constructionas well as production for a long time of twenty years. It was held thatthe reasons stated by the power of attorney that the original paperswere lost somewhere in September, 2003 does not carry any weight forexplaining the delay of twenty years.

6. The order of the Appellate authority dated 11.01.2008 wasassailed by the appellants before Principal Secretary, Government ofHaryana, Department of Town and Country Planning and Urban Estates(the Revisional authority) under Section 30(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 andthe same was dismissed by order dated 15.04.2014 inter alia on thefollowing grounds:- •That the allotment of industrial plot was made at concessionalrates with a view to generate employment for the unemployedand keeping in view the economic development of the State andthe allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of suchindustrial plot by not commencing the production for twenty yearsfrom the date of allotment and delivery of possession; •That the revision preferred by the appellants is barred by limitationhaving been filed after a delay of one year and three months andthat too without any application for condonation of delay; and •That the plot was allotted to M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills andthe appellants could not show how they stepped into the shoesof the firm and it was an act of the appellants to appropriate theplot to the exclusion of the legal heirs of the partners of the firm.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the appellantsfiled Writ Petition (C) No.19256 of 2014 before the High Court whichcame to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.09.2014. TheHigh Court noted that as rightly observed by the Revisional authority,the plot was allotted at a concessional price with the object of commencingproduction or industrial activities within a reasonable time which wouldBgenerate employment for the unemployed youth and also generate revenuein the form of leviable taxes for the public exchequer besides adding tothe economic development of the nation. The High Court held that thefailure of the allottee to start production for such a long time after theallotment defeated the very purpose of allotment of the plot.C8. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Gautam Sharma, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the impugnedorder and materials placed on record.

9. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that the appellants-legalDheirs of the allottee Rabinder Nath, MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Millswere unsuccessful before the Estate Officer, Appellate authority andthe Revisional authority and also before the High Court. All the authoritiesas well as the High Court recorded concurrent findings that the allotteehas not commenced production for twenty long years from the date ofallotment and handing over of possession till passing of the order ofEresumption in 2004 and also building was not constructed and there wasbreach of terms and conditions of the allotment and such non-commencement of production defeated the very purpose of allotment ofsuch industrial plots. The question falling for consideration is whethersuch concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and also by theFHigh Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference bythis Court.

10. With a view to ensure rapid industrial growth on sustainablebasis to achieve the twin objects of economic development and generationof adequate employment, the industrial estates/areas were establishedin order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial policy was framed byGthe State of Haryana aiming at balancing regional development. Aftercompletion of various formalities, Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area,Phase-II, Panchkula was allotted vide letter dated 25.07.1984 andpossession thereof was delivered on 19.09.1984. The undertaking ofthe production as per the approved project is the foundation for theHallotment of industrial plots. These plots are allotted at a very reasonable rate/concessional rate with a view to provide incentives to the allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to encourage industrialization and growth inemployment opportunities. These allotments are not only governed bythe provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulationsframed thereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy ofthe State of Haryana. The allotment of the industrial plot in question toRabinder Nath as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills was subject to theterms and conditions of the allotment. As per clause (18) of the allotment,the allottee has to complete the construction within two years from thedate of offer of possession. Clause (11) stipulates that in the event ofbreach of any other condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resumethe land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDAAct, 1977. Clauses 18 and 11 read as under:

“18. You will have to complete the construction within two yearsof the date of offer of possession, after petting the plans of theproposed building approved from the competent authority inaccordance with the regulations governing the erection ofbuildings. This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if heis satisfied the non-construction of the building was due to reasonsbeyond your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumedand the whole or part of the money paid if any, in respect of itforfeited in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Youshall not erect any building or make any alteration/addition withoutprior permission of the Estate Officer, no fragmentation of anyland or building shall be permitted.

11. In the event of breach of any other condition of transfer theEstate Officer may resume the land in accordance with theprovisions of Section 17 of the Act.”

The appellants have admittedly not commenced the industrial productionon the plot for twenty long years after allotment and delivery ofpossession. The appellants seem to have woken upon only after issuanceof the Show Cause Notice. Evidently, there is breach of condition ofallotment of the plot.

11. Contention of the appellants is that Rabinder Nath (NRI), MDof M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills who was allotted the plot, was detectedwith cancer and died of cancer in 1987. Satyawati Devi w/o RabinderNath who became the sole proprietor of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Millsalso remained disabled and she was also detected with cancer in 2004and she was getting disability allowance from 1992 to 2003 as per the A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Adocuments on record. It is therefore, the submission of the appellantsthat legal representatives could not do anything or take any constructiveaction from 1985 till 2003 despite the fact that they have constructed abuilding without a completion certificate. It is the contention of theappellants that the default was not wilful and extreme step of resumptionof land ought not to have been resorted by HUDA.B12. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, oneRakesh Sarna claiming himself as General Power of Attorney filed thereply dated 14.11.2003. In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) has notstated anything about the illness or the disability of Satyawati. In thesaid reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) only took excuse for non-constructionCof the building and non-production stating that original documents like (i)Allotment Letter; (ii) Possession Letter; (iii) No Due Certificate; (iv)Deed of Conveyance; (v) Occupation Certificate; and (vi) Building Planswere missing and he has asked for issuance of duplicate copies of relevantdocuments. The said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) further stated that they wouldDconstruct the building within six months from the date of receipt of missingdocuments.

13. As pointed out earlier, the allotment of industrial plot was withthe twin objects of economic development and generation of adequateemployment. In order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial policywas framed by the State of Haryana aiming at balanced regionalEdevelopment and with a view to generate adequate employment. Theallotment of industrial plot was at concessional rate and was subject toterms and conditions and the allottee was bound to comply with theterms and conditions. In such kind of allotment of industrial plots, based on government industrial policy with twin objectives of economicFdevelopment and generation of adequate employment, sympathy cannotbe the ground for considering the case of the appellants as to their non-compliance of the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twentylong years after the allotment.

14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended thatGthe opportunity of personal hearing rendered was a mere formality andno opportunity was given to the appellants for commencement ofproduction. Contention of the appellants is that though the show causeNotice dated 26.08.2003 and the Resumption order dated 25.02.2004were passed on the ground of non-commencement of production; the

H

appellate and revisional authority as well as the impugned order passedby the High Court upheld the resumption of the plot on altogether distinctpremise of non-construction of the building. Learned senior counsel haddrawn our attention to the Resumption order dated 25.02.2004 passedby the Estate Officer wherein it is stated that the “plot and buildingconstructed thereon…..” are resumed in exercise of powers vested underSection 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. The learned senior counselsubmitted that buildings were actually constructed by the allottee andthe inconsistency between show cause notice and the order of Revisionalauthority was not kept in view by the High Court.

15. As discussed earlier, the industrial plots were allotted at avery reasonable rates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentivesto the allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growth andeconomic development of the State and generation of adequateemployment opportunities. These allotments are not only governed bythe provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules and Regulations framedthereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy of the State.Construction of building and commencement of production are the integralpart of the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. The appellateand Revisional authority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted forthe observation that the buildings were not constructed for twenty longyears after allotment. If the construction of the building was reallycomplete, the appellants could have very well filed the completioncertificate; but that was not to be so. It is pertinent to note that in thereply dated 14.11.2003 of the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) of Satyawati, itis stated that “we will construct the building within six months fromthe receipt of missing documents”. We fail to understand that why thesaid Rakesh Sarna (GPA) should undertake to construct the buildingwithin six months from the date of receipt of missing documents. In thisregard, we may usefully refer to the order of the Revisional authoritywhich has referred to the comments of the Estate Officer received videMemo No.19584 dated 23.12.2013 where it was stated as under:- “….it is clear that there was no construction till the passing ofresumption order and whatever construction was raised, wasraised illegally after expiry of stipulated period. Therefore, onthis ground also, the Revision Petition deserves dismissal…..”

16. Contending that the extreme step of resumption of plot iserroneous, the learned senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aupon Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and others,(2004)2 SCC 130 wherein it was inter alia held that one of the questionswhich the Estate Officer must always pose is as to whether the drasticpower of resumption and forfeiture has been taken recourse to as a lastresort. It was submitted that the present case is not the one where theextreme step of resumption of plot ought to have been resorted to. TheBfacts of the said case are distinguished from the case in hand. In TeriOat Estates case, the appellants thereon were merely to pay the balanceamount of 75 per cent of the consideration amount in instalments. Theappellants, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, not only paid theentire amount but also paid ground rent and further paid 10 per centCpenalty on the forfeited amount. Teri Oat Estates case, thus related tothe default in payment of instalments of premium and interest thereonand ground rent in terms of allotment; but default was found to be notwilful and dishonest. In such facts and circumstances of the said case,this Court held that the authorities were not justified in resorting to the extreme step of resumption of the land. In the case in hand, per contra,Dthe allottee has failed to complete construction within the stipulated timeas per condition No.18 and commence production for a period of almosttwenty years despite there being a clear stipulation in the allotment letterrequiring them to complete construction within a period of two years.They have also failed to explain sufficient cause for this inordinate delayEoccasioned by them. As rightly held by the authorities, the allottee hasdefeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial plot.

17. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has also drawn ourattention to the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh passed in CWP No.15672 of 2008 Anup Chauhan v. TheFFinancial Commissioner & Secretary and others wherein the HighCourt directed the Respondent Authority to consider the claim of thepetitioner. However, the facts of the case in hand have to be distinguishedfrom those of the Anup Chauhan case. In the writ petition, the petitionershad applied for an extension till 2006 to complete the project and hadalso paid the extension fee for the same and the Estate Officer hadGpassed an order on 30.11.2004 resuming the plot and in such facts, theHigh Court set aside the order of resumption of plot.

18. Similarly, in another case relied upon by the appellants, i.e.Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad & Another v.H

Mrs. Manu Gupta and another in RSA No.908 of 2012, the appealfiled by HUDA was dismissed with a direction that HUDA cannot beallowed to take advantage of their own wrong and burden the respondentwith further payment, despite their making the payment under the orderof the court, which the appellant HUDA deliberately avoided to accept.But in the case in hand, it is the appellants who have defaulted in fulfillingthe terms and conditions of the allotment letter for a long time of abouttwenty years.

19. All the judgments relied upon by the appellants aredistinguishable on facts. Even assuming that for some other allottees,order of resumption of plot had been quashed/cancelled, the appellantscannot claim equality of treatment. Article 14 is a positive concept andcannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner. In State of Orissaand another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, it was held asunder:-

“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meantto perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality.Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have beengranted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such orderdoes not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the samerelief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC745, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC548, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581, KrishanBhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24, Upendra NarayanSingh (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of India v. Kartick ChandraMondal (2010) 2 SCC 422)”

20. This Court issued notice (vide order dated 07.01.2015) on thebasis of submissions made on behalf of the appellants that they areagreeable to pay the present market value of the plot in question. Thelearned senior counsel Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the appellantssubmitted that the appellants are ready to pay the present market valueof the plot in question. Refuting the said submission, the learned counselfor HUDA has submitted that at present, there is no HUDA policy toallot the resumed industrial plot on the current market price. It wassubmitted that allotment of industrial plots at present is governed byEstate Management Procedure (EMP), 2011 and the subsequent EMP,2015 as per which, industrial plot is to be allotted or disposed of only as A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aper Regulation/policy. It was submitted that industrial plots are disposedof as per EMP and in this regard, the learned counsel has drawn ourattention to the counter filed as to the EMP governing the allotment ofthe industrial plots including the invitation of applications throughadvertisements. When allotment of industrial plots is thus governed byEMP, the prayer of the appellants that they are ready to pay the currentBmarket rate for the industrial plot cannot be considered.

21. The allotment of Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula in 1984 to Rabinder Nath was in his capacity as ManagingDirector of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills. The plot was thus allotted tothe partnership firm. The appellants have not been able to show as toChow they stepped into the shoes of the partnership firm, apart from themere fact that they are legal heirs of Rabinder Nath. As discussedearlier, at the time of making application for allotment of industrial plot,the applicant has to clearly disclose all the facts regarding the type ofindustry to be started, licence if necessary under law, project report,Destimated cost of project, details regarding time required in completingthe project, details of employees required, source of fund etc. The projectso submitted is then approved by the competent authority afterconsidering its viability. The applicants are then issued letter of intent/provisional allotment letter with condition to complete the other formalities within the stipulated period of time and after completion of formalities,Eregular allotment letter is issued in favour of the applicant. As pointedout earlier, the undertaking of the production as per the approved projectis the foundation for the allotment of the industrial plots which is withtwin object of economic development and generation of employmentopportunities. Over the years, the State has undergone substantiveFchanges and economic growth. Land/industrial plots now becoming veryscarce, governed by the present EMP, the appellants cannot seek forrevocation of resumption by contending that they are ready to pay thecurrent market rate.

22. The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption ofGland only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violationof the procedure. Clause (11) of the terms and conditions of allotmentclearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions oftransfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with theprovisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumptionof the plot is as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order andH

DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisionalauthority. The appellants having failed before all the forums includingthe High Court and also the Revisional authority, we do not find anyserious infirmity or illegality in the order of resumption of the plot andtherefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H