ARUN PALLI,J. - (1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure P35), vide which an industrial plot allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was resumed; and also the orders dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P37), dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure P40), whereby the appeal as also the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of resumption were dismissed.
(2.) Facts that are required to be noticed are limited. An industrial site bearing No.461, Sector 58, Faridabad, was allotted to Sh. Sanjay Gandhi, vide letter of allotment dated 01.07.2002 (Annexure P1). Possession of the allotted site was also offered to the allottee on the same day i.e. 01.07.2002 itself. In terms of clause 16 of the allotment letter, allottee was required to construct 50% of the permissible covered area of the plot and install 50% of the plant and machinery, as per the implementation schedule of production, within a period of three years from the date of offer of possession. The allottee got the site plans sanctioned on 21.12.2004. And thereafter purports to have constructed the site in September, 2005. Subsequently, he also sought permission from the authorities to transfer the site in favour of the petitioners. And, vide letter dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P20), the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad (respondent No.3) accorded the necessary permission, but subject to certain terms set out in the said letter. Resultantly, a sale deed, dated 27.03.2006 (Annexure P21), was executed by the allottee in favour of the petitioners. And, upon obtaining the actual physical possession of the site, the petitioners purport to have purchased machines/equipments, raw material and commenced business. However, the petitioners were served upon a notice under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, dated 12.11.2008, vide which they were alleged to have breached condition No.16 of the letter of allotment: non-construction of site, failure to start construction and obtaining occupation certificate within the specified time. And eventually, vide order dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure P35), respondent No.3 ordered resumption of site and also forfeiture of 10% of the amount deposited by the allottee. Appeal preferred against the order of resumption failed, for it was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P37). So was the fate of the revision preferred by the petitioner, for that too was dismissed, vide order dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure P40). That is how, as indicated above, the petitioners are before this court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that site plans were sanctioned by the authorities in December, 2004, and the DPC certificate, dated 20.06.2005 (Annexure P4), issued by the Divisional Engineer, shows that construction at site was complete upto plinth level. And, eventually the site was fully constructed in September, 2005. Further, he submits that pursuant to the permission accorded by the authorities, the site was transferred in favour of the petitioners. And, soon after obtaining possession, the petitioners set up a plant and commenced production. Thus, he asserts that there was no violation of clause 16 of the letter of allotment. And, hence, the order of resumption was wholly erroneous and so were the orders passed by the appellate as also the revisional authorities.;