- (1.) M. Katju, J. This is the defendants appeal against the judgment of the Court below dated 6-2-95 in suit No. 462 of 1994, M/s. Dabur Containers (P) Ltd. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as NOIDA ).
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for declaring the letter dated 30-3-94 issued by the defendant-appellant NOIDA by which the allotment of plot No. 40 Block-C, Sector 58 Phase-3, NOIDA, Tahsil Dadri District Ghaziabad was cancelled as null and void. The plaintiff-respondents also prayed for an injunction restraining NOIDA from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and for a direction to the defendant to re-schedule the instalments while imposing simple interest. A copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the Stay Application filed with this appeal. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent was allotted the aforesaid plot by NOIDA on 16-10-90 and possession was handed over to the plaintiff and a lease deed was executed on 20-2-91. As per the terms mentioned in the allotment letter and the lease deed the plaintiff was required to pay the amount due against the aforesaid plot and to put his unit functional within a stipulated time but the plaintiff failed to fulfill these conditions and consequently the allotment of the plot was cancelled by order dated 30-3-94. A true copy of the written statement filed by the NOIDA before the trial Court is Annexure-2 to the Stay Application.
(3.) IT is alleged in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 1,87,846 to the defendant and the remaining amount has to be paid by 31-12-1995. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant has not done any development work in the area. In paragraph 7 it is stated that since no development work was done by the defendant the plaintiff could not set up its factory or start its business and hence it was unable to pay the instalments which were due. However, in paragraph 8 it is stated that the defendant has now started the development work and on 21-3-94 the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 26,000 to the defendant. The plaintiff has denied that it has committed any violation of the conditions of the allotment or lease deed. Hence it is alleged in paragraph 10 of the plaint that the impugned letter dated 30-3-94 was illegal. IT is alleged that no opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff before issuing that letter. In its written statement NOIDA has denied the plaint allegations. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the same that the plaintiff did not abide by the conditions of the allotment or lease deed, did not make the payment of instalments and did not made the unit functional for which notices were given to the plaintiff from time to time but yet he did not made any payment or make the unit functional. Hence by letter dated 30-3-94 the allotment was cancelled. In paragraph 4 of the written statements it is denied that the plaintiff has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,87,846. It is alleged that if the plaintiff has deposited the said amount he should produce the receipt for the same. In paragraph 5 it is stated that the plaintiff was allotted a developed plot with sewer line, electricity, road, water and other facilities. In the same area many Industrialists are running their businesses.;