- (1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure P4), vide which the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner was resumed. As also the order dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P11), vide which appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The facts which are required to be noticed are limited. Petitioner was allotted industrial Plot No.22, measuring 133 sq.meters in Industrial Area, Tohana, to set up a flour mill, pursuant to a letter of allotment dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P1).
(2.) The site was allotted at Rs. 39,900/- and the petitioner paid the entire price, vide five half yearly installments with interest. Petitioner was put in actual, physical possession of the allotted site on 07.04.2008. However, vide order dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure P4), the authorities resumed the site, for, the petitioner failed to implement the project, for which the allotment was made. The order of resumption was assailed by the petitioner vide an appeal, which too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. This is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded any notice or opportunity of hearing before the authorities ordered resumption of the allotted sites. He was not even served upon the said order. Further, he contends that the petitioner could not construct the site and commission the project, for his father was suffering from Renal Failure, who eventually died on 07.02.2008. And now, petitioner was/is ready to implement the project within the time that shall be prescribed by the authorities. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. Ex facie, the petitioner was allotted an industrial site to set up a flour mill vide letter of allotment dated 24.11.2006. Possession of the allotted site was offered to the petitioner on 24.11.2006 itself. In terms of allotment/EMP 2005 guidelines, the petitioner was required to obtain possession of the site, submit building plans for approval, start construction at site and implement the approved project within four years (including one year general extension). Concededly, petitioner failed to construct the site within the stipulated time i.e. upto 23.11.2010. Thus, there was no occasion to enforce the project. Not just that, even after he obtained the physical possession of the site on 07.04.2008, he failed to implement the project for a further period of almost four years. As a result, the authorities were choiceless but to order resumption on 02.07.2012.;