VIJAY INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted an industrial plot No. 158, Sector Phase I of the Industrial Estate, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar measuring 250 Square Yards by allotment letter dated 6.2.1978. The petitioner deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs. 5000/- with the Estate Officer. The conveyance deed was executed and registered on 19.4.1994. The possession was also offered to the petitioner on 4.8.1983. According to Annexure P-1, the allotment letter the petitioner had to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession. This stipulation is further reiterated in Clause 5 of the Conveyance Deed which is as follows:-

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the petitioner was duty bound to complete the construction within two years from the date of offer of possession in accordance with the relevant rules/regulations. The aforesaid time limit could be extended by the Estate Officer in case the petitioner had failed to complete the construction by stipulated date due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. When the petitioner failed to make any construction on the plot for a number of years, respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice dated 5.2.93 under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the construction has not been completed. Then on 15.3.1995, respondent No. 3 issued a notice under Section 17(4) of the Act giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He was directed to appear either in person or through a duly authorised representative on 11.4.95 11 A.M. in the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner gave reply to the aforesaid notice and stated that he may be given time for four months to pay extension fees. He also stated that "at this stage, I am not in a position to pay the extension fees". On 21.6.1995, the petitioner was given another opportunity of hearing and he was directed to appear either in person or through a duly authorised representative on 11.7.95 at 11.00 A.M. in the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner was also informed that if he fails to appear, exparte proceeding will be taken in the matter. The petitioner gave reply to the aforesaid notice by letter dated 11.7.1995 in which he stated as follows:-

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid reply shows that the petitioner was unable to make the construction due to some bad circumstances, which he did not care to explain to the respondents. He again sought time for two months after 30.9.1995 for payment of extension fees and to complete the construction. Since the petitioner failed to appear before respondent No. 3 at any stage, an order was passed on 14.7.1995 by which the plot allotted to the petitioner was resumed. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2. In this appeal, for the first time, the petitioner stated that the construction could not be completed as no basic amenities like road, water-supply, sewerage line and proper electrical facilities have been provided to the industrialists at the time of allotment of the plot. Therefore, it was not possible to construct and shift the factory premises of the petitioner. It was also stated that till the date of the filing of appeal, no proper facilities as mentioned above were available. Respondent No. 2 heard the appellant in person on 10.10.1996 and dismissed the appeal. It has been noticed in the order dismissing the appeal that the possession was offered on 4.8.1983. The petitioner failed to construct the building within the stipulated time. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 8.11.1990 and 21.6.1995 respectively. The petitioner neither appeared before respondent No. 3 nor constructed the building within the stipulated period. Hence the order of resumption was passed on 14.7.1995 by respondent No. 3. When the petitioner appeared before the Appellate Authority in person he stared that due to the family circumstances, the appellant was not able to start construction. He stated that he is ready to start the construction, if the plot in question is restored. He also showed his willingness to pay all the penalties as per HUDA rules and regulations. It is to be noticed that the petitioner did not raise the plea of discrimination before the Appellate Authority. No details were given by the petitioner of the plots which have been restored to allottees who were similarly situated to the petitioner. His only plea before the Appellate Authority was that he could not start the construction due to family circumstances. He did not even argue before the Appellate Authority that there were no amenities available either at the time of allotment of the plot or at the time when the appeal was heard. After noticing the aforesaid facts, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no intention to construct the building and start the industrial production for which industrial plot was offered.