Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was allotted plot No. 12 measuring 12,100 sq. yards at Dharuhera Industrial Complex, Dharuhera, District Rewari, vide allotment dated 29.07.1980 to establish a unit for manufacturing resins. As per conditions of the allotment letter, petitioner was required to pay 25% of the total tentative price within 30 days from the date of the issuance of the allotment letter. The balance amount was required to be paid either in lump -sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in six yearly annual installments.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the petitioner paid 25% of the total amount within the stipulated period. Rest of the amount was to be paid by way of yearly installments. To start the manufacturing unit, the petitioner entered into a collaboration with a Japanese Company. However, in March 1984, the petitioner received a letter dated 08.03.1984 from one Shri P.R. Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of M/s. Krishna and Co. that the company has obtained an injunction order from the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 3467 of 1982, titled as "M/s. Krishana & Co. vs. State of Haryana and others". In the said order, respondents were restrained from delivering the possession of the plot in dispute to "M/s. Orient Resins Limited" i.e. present petitioner and the petitioner was further restrained from raising any construction thereon, if the possession has already been delivered to them. The petitioner approached the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, vide letter dated 22.03.1984 to clarify in the entire matter and inform the present status of the matter. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner was asked to keep paying the regular installments and that the petitioner shall be duly informed regarding the decision of the Court, after the matter has been finally decided. Therefore, the petitioner continued to make regular payment of installments in good faith. Due to the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner could not proceed with the collaboration with the Japanese Company and the collaboration was ultimately terminated. The petitioner completed the payment of entire installments in the year 1987. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued 'No Dues Certificate' to the petitioner regarding the said plot on 30.07.1987. Due to stay order of the Hon'ble High Court, for eight years, no construction could be raised on the said plot. Under Clause 18 of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to complete the construction upon the plot within two years or within the extended period. Respondent No. 4 did not inform the petitioner about the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter. On 01.09.1987, the possession letter was issued to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 07.11.1988, the petitioner requested respondent No. 4 to execute the sale deed. However, no response was received. After receipt of the possession letter, the petitioner decided to utilize the plot to grow some raw material such as trees etc. for the manufacturing of resins. Implementation of the earlier project had become impossible due to various reasons. The chemical industry is technical industry and as the technology changes every day, there was no purpose of going back to the said project. The petitioner had grown about 6,000 trees on the plot and also installed tubewell. He had started commercial agricultural activity on the said plot. In May 1990, the petitioner received a notice dated 02.05.1990 from respondent No. 4, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why order of resumption of the site be not passed, as the petitioner had failed to complete the construction within two years or within the extended period, which expired on 29.07.1982, the petitioner submitted a reply. After considering the reply, the petitioner was directed to appear in person on 30.08.1990. On 30.08.1990, no hearing took place. The petitioner again visited the office of respondent No. 4 on 31.08.1990 to explain the entire position to respondent No. 4 and reminded him about the stay order granted by the Hon'ble High court. As a result of which construction was not possible.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 17.09.1990 (Annexure P17) ordering the resumption of the plot alleging that the petitioner has failed to complete construction on the plot within two years, which expired on 29.07.1982.;