Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
56. Payments were made in the name of the Company G although allotment had been made in the individual names of the respondents herein. The allotment of the said plot was can- celled on the premise that payment has not been made in terms of Clauses 4 and 5 of the offer of allotment dated 18.07.2003. A proceeding for resumption was initiated and by an order dated 1.06.2004, the said plot was resumed. Aggrieved by and dis- M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. M/S. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR [S.S. SINHA, J] ~ satisfied therewith, a writ petition was filed. The respondents in their rejoinder averred: " … Upon cancellation of the allotment of plot in question, the said plot was included in the list of plots available for allotment and pursuant to invitation of applications for B allotment of plots by way of advertisement in Newspapers, a draw of lots was held on 1.6.2004, wherein 215 residential plots including the plot in question were further allotted and the plot in question stands allotted to Shri Suresh Chand Jain s/o Shri Hussan Lal Jain, resident of E-12, c Bahubali Enclave, Near Geetanjli Apartments, Karkardooma, New Delhi. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of this score alone."
57. However, the said subsequent allottee was not im- pleaded as a party. The High Court allowed the writ petition on i the premise that the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,78,200/- and in view of Clause 3 of offer of allotment, it was for them to make payment in terms thereof. In regard to the pur- ported conflict between Clauses 3 and 4, the High Court opined: "If clause 3 is in conflict with clause 4, the petitioners cannot be blamed to have opted for the concession available to them in clause 3. At no point of time, the respondent Corporation had ever chosen to clarify that the petitioners were required to make the payment exclusively in terms of clause 4 of the letter of allotment. On account of F inconsistency between the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of the letter of allotment, confiscatory orders of cancellation could not have been passed by the Corporation against the petitioners. At this stage, we may notice that even as per the petitioners and as per the schedule of payment, by way of instalments, the petitioners were liable to make payment of the entire amount of plot upto July 2, 2006. However, they could not make the payment of instalments on account of cancellation c order and on account of the fact that the present writ petition has been pending in this Court. We further notice that a plea raised by the petitioners is that the order dated October 28, 2004 had never been communicated to them. The petitioners have even maintained that the said order had been ante-dated by the Corporation. The respondent Corporation has however maintained that the said order was duly passed, although no details have been given as to when the said order had ever been communicated to the petitioners. We must also take note of the pleas raised by the respondent Corporation that in pursuance to an advertisement on March 2, 2004, 215 residential plots including plot No. 331 had been allotted by way of draw of lots held on June 1, 2004. However, no details of any such allottee have been given in the written statement. While issuing notice of motion, this Court had specifically directed that the re- allotment of the land allotted to the petitiones would be subject to the final decision of the case."
58. We agree with the High Court that Clause 3 of the said offer of the order of allotment dated 18.07 .2003, on the one hand, and Clauses 4 and 5, on the other, are irreconcilable. Payment to be made under Clause 3 cannot be subject to the stipulations contained in Clauses 4 and 5. They are indepen- dent of each other. The allottee in terms of Clause 3 had an option. Mode of payment in terms of Clause 3, on the one hand, and Clauses 4 and 5, on the other, are distinct and different. However, the High Court was not correct when it directed that re-allotment of land would be subject to the final decision of the case.
59. Cancellation of plot as also reallotment thereof had been made in June 2004. The writ petition was filed in July, 2005. The subsequent allottee, therefore, was a necessary party and in his absence the writ petition should have been dismissed as not maintainable. M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. M/S. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]
60. This Court in Rashmi Mishra v. M.P Public Service Commission and others [(2006) 12 SCC 724] observed: "16. In Prabodh Verma this Court held: (SCC pp. 273- 74, para 28) "The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary B parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers concerned. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties – not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering c that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its D judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." (See also All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen and lndu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P.)"
61. By reason of the judgment of the High Court, the right of a third party has been affected. He without having been im- pleaded as a party in the writ petition cannot suffer an adverse order for which he is no way responsible. A statement has been made before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General that no residential plot is available for allotment. He, however, sub- mits that as and when such a plot is available, the same would (2008) 9 S.C.R. be offered to the respondent. We may place on record the afore- mentioned submission. However, we feel that the respondents were not to be blamed for not depositing the amount. lnvoca- tion of Clause 4 is clearly illegal. We, therefore, are of the opin- ion that the respondent should be suitably compensated on monetary terms. We direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondents herein. We, however, also direct that keeping in view the statements made at the Bar, as and when any residential plot becomes available, the same should be allotted to the respondents on the same terms. c
62. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19949 of 2006 is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 19916 of 2006 H.S.l.D.C. &Anr. v .. Mr. Ved Govil &Anr.
63. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot at Manesar, Gurgaon by the Appellant Corporation. lndis- putably, it deposited a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- being 10 per cent of the total cost of the said plot. It, however, was not satisfied with the said allotment. A prayer was made to change the plot which was accepted by the appellant Corporation. He was al- lotted a plot No. 269 in Sector 7 on or about 9.7.2004. They were, however, not satisfied with the said allotment and made another representation for change of plot. On or about 21.9.2004, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ F – towards 15% of the total price of the plot. He was, however, .-4 required to deposit the said amount by 22.7.2004 which was extend able by another 30 days on interest at 11 % per annum after 22.7.2004, but he failed to do so. Appellant took a stand that the letter of allotment elapsed automatically. The amount of G Rs. 3,96,000/-was directed to be refunded. The bank draft sent by the respondent for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was also returned. The respondent filed a Writ Petition.
64. The High Court was of the opinion that although re- H spondent was required to deposit 15% of the price of plot on or M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. M/S. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR [S.B. SINHA, J] ……. before 22. 7.2004, but by clause 3 of the Letter of Allotment, the said amount could be deposited by him within 60 days. The High Court accepted that there had been a delay on the part of the appellant. The interim order was passed directing the ap- pellant to re-allot the plot, however the same was not allotted. The High Court directed: "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed in the above portion of the judgment, we allow the present petition and restore the allotment of plot No. 269, Sector 7, Manesar to the petitioner as per original terms of allotment. Since the petitioner was required to c pay the entire amount, even by way of instalments upto January 16, 2007, therefore, the petitioner is directed to make the total payment of the entire amount towards the cost of the plot in question within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. On receipt of the entire payment, the actual physical possession of the plot in question shall be handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner shall, however, remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment."
65. It is a clear case where the respondents have failed to abide by any of the terms of contract. It did not deposit even the initial amount in time, there was no reason for it not to do so. Even interest payable on the said amount had not been paid. The appeal should, therefore, be allowed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 19833 of 2006 H.S.l.D.C. & ORS. v. M/s. Paradise Engineers & Anr.
66. A plot admeasuring 1012 sq. meters being plot No. 985, Sector-6, Manesar was allotted in favour of the respon- dent. He requested for a change of plot. However, a regular t" letter of allotment was issued on 23. 1.2001. The final agree- ment was entered into on or about 20.9.2001. However, pos- session was delivered on 31. 10.2001.
67. On the premise that respondent has not complied witb the terms and conditions of the agreement, a notice was is- sued on 17.4.2003. Respondent, however, was asked to take physical possession of the land and also to apply for extension for the purpose of starting construction by the Estate Manager of the appellant Corporation by a letter dated 24.4.2003. Pur- B suant thereto physical possession was said to have been handed over on 6.5.2003. Respondent, thereafter applied for grant of water connection on 1. 7.2004. He submitted his build- ing plan on 10.7.2004. Alleging that the ownership is in dispute, the plan was not sanctioned. The Town Planner of the appellant c asked the Senior Manager of the Corporation to ascertain own- ership status before the building plans could be cleared. From an internal communication dated 21.7.2004, however, it ap- pears that building plans were not processed on the premise that ownership clearance had not come from the Corporation. D By a letter dated 23.8.2004, respondent informed the concerned authority that the request of clearance of ownership status was being pursued with the authorities of the appellant.
68. A show cause notice for resumption of the plot, how- ever, was issued on or about 21.9.2004 alleging that construe- E tion work had not been started within a period of one and a half year of the handing over of the possession and some amount was outstanding.
69. Respondents in their show cause, brought the afore- mentioned fact to the notice of the concerned authority of the appelalnt. It was requested that the excess period for starting …. construction may be waived by imposing some penalty. An as- surance was given to start construction on clearance of build- ing plan and ownership status. It was pointed out that the sum of Rs. 14,30,940/- had already been deposited.
70. Respondent filed a further reply on 22.12.2004. No opportunity of personal hearing was granted. By an order dated -t 7.3.2005, an order of 1 esumption was issued. Howeve.r, despite the same, letters were written by the appellant communicating the respondent in respect of certain errors in the building plans M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. MIS. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J) _.._ as would appear from the letters dated 8.4.2005 and A 10.11.2005.
71. Building plans were re-submitted by the respondent on 14.12.2005 whereto again some defects were pointed out therein. In the meantime, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner by an Order dated ….. 16.2.2006 .
72. A Writ Petition was filed which by reason of the im- pugned judgment has been allowed. In the Writ Petition inter alia a contention was raised that c the appellant had regularized the delay by extending the period of construction even for a period of four years in favour of the parties named therein which was not denied or disputed. It claimed parity with the decision of the High Court in case of M/ s. Jassi Designs Versus Managing Director, HSIDC and 0th- ers being C.W.P. No. 4530 of 2005. The SLP preferred there- against has been dismissed.
73. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit; (i) The principles of natural justice have not been complied with as no opportunity of personal hearing was given to it. The order of resumption did not contain any reason, there is nothing to show that the points raised deserved due consideration at the hands of the concerned authorities. (ii) The respondent had been discriminated with insofar as the persons similarly situated had been granted extension even for a period of four years and thus the respondent was not meted with equal"treatment. G {iii) Appellants could have cleared the building plan as r the same was filed within the stipulated period. (iv) Appellant cannot take benefit of their own wrong. (v) All dues with interest have already been paid.
74. In view of clause 10 of the contract, the respondent being not permitted to transfer the land, it was bound to engage itself only in industrial activity wherefor the allotment was ob- tained. In this case, the respondent has clearly been discriminated against. Appellant's action is clearly unfair and unreasonable. In any event, it has waived its right Furthermore, it was a case where the principles of natural justice should have been com- e plied with.
75. The High Co;Jrt in, this case, in its impugned judgment has taken care to see that the object for grant of allotment were fulfilled being promotion of industrial growth.
76. Applying the principles of law as indicated hereinbe- fore, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20235 of 2006 H.S.l.D.C. & Ors. Vs. Mr. Anand Minda & Anr.
77. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment dated 29.8.2001 at !MT, Manesar. Thereafter, a final Agreement was entered into be- F tween the parties on 24.9.01. On 4.11.01, physical possession was offered to the respondent, which was not taken. Allegedly, no construction was started ~y the respondent.
78. On 16.7.02, the appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent for its failure to take possession and set up G the industrial unit
79. Respondent vide its letter dated 24.2.03 requested the appellant for handing over the possession. In response -t thereto, the respondent was asked to clear the outstanding dues H in regard to the second installment. Subsequently, the appellant M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. MIS. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J] by its letter dated 14.5.03, asked the respondent to attend its A office to take over the possession of the plot. Despite being handed the possession on 17.6.03, no construction was com- menced by the respondent. On 29.10.03, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent for failure to commence construe- · tion. Respondent vide its letter dated 7.11.2003, requested for B six months extension. Thereafter, on 7.10.2004, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why an order of re- sumption should not be passed against him. On the failure of the respondent to satisfy the concerned authority with regard to the delay in commencement of the construction, the plot was c ordered to be resumed vide letter dated 28.2.05. The resump- tion order was challenged before the Commissioner of Indus- tries, who, vide its order dated 13.1.2006, dismissed the same.
80. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the respondent herein filed a Writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by its D order dated 28.7.2006, allowed. the said Writ Petition and quashed the order of resumption.
81. Respondent had already appointed an architect for construction of the building. It had already started constructions. The fact that it was the Department which did not grant any li- cense. The Appellate Committee, however, did not consider this aspect of the matter at all and thus the appellate orders suf- fered from total non-application of mind.
82. This Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
83. We may now consider the cases where the High Court passed an order without assigning sufficient and cogent rea- sons. It did not arrive at a finding of fact that the action on the part of the appellants was unfair and unjust. We intend to notice the fact of these matters separately. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16541 of 2006 HSIDC v. S.R. Polysteel
84. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial H: [2008) 9 S.C.R. plot in Industrial Estate IMT, Manesar, by the Appellant Corpo- ration. Allegedly, a dispute arose as regards handing over of the actual possession of the said plot. Respondents contend that the entire 1 '' installment along with interest was duly paid within the stipulated time except for delay of 22 days. lndisput- B ably, the appellant offered the respondent possession of the plot and asked to commence construction by its letters dated 19.12.2001, 9.8.2002 and 11.11.2003. Respondents contend that thoug~ a request was made to hand over possession by its letter dated 2.8.02 however, the same was not granted.
85. Two show-cause notices dated 1.3.05 and 19.5.05 were issued by the appellant to the respondent. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent, the said plot was resumed on 7. 7 .05. Respondent filed a Writ Petition be- fore the High Court which was disposed of on 8.08.2006 di- D reeling the allottee to appear before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal. Respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court while allowing the petition quashed the resump- tion order and directed the respondent to complete the con- E struction of the industrial building within a period of six months from the date of offer of the possession of the plot. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16708 of 2006 HSIDC v. M/~. Dulari Exports
86. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its allotment letter dated 14.6.2000 at IMT, Manesar. On 14.8.2000, a Regular Letter of Allotment was issued to the respondent which inter-alia required it to commence construc- tion of the building within a period of one year and commercial G produC:tion within a period of three years from the date of offer of possession. The said clause was also incorporated in an Agreement dat~d 8.9.00 entered into between the two parties .. Indisputably, on 24.12.01, the appellant issued a receipt for ac- ceptance of three demand drafts to the respondent towards pay- H men! of the installments. On 8.1.03, a show cause notice was r M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. MIS. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J] issued by the appellant to the respondent regarding the failure A to set up the industrial unit. On 1.1.04, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent as to why the said plot should not be resumed in view of non-commencement of construction and non- payment of the 4th and 5th installments. Being dissatisfied by the reply so rendered by the respondent, the appellant gave the respondent an opportunity of retaining the plot by allowing him to convey his acceptance to buy the plot at the current price of Rs. 2200/- per sq. meter.
87. Aggrieved by the order of resumption, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Industries on c 9.2.04. The said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the order of resumption was not final. Aggrieved by the two orders, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
88. The High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition on D …( the ground that an appeal was pending before an appropriate authority, however allowed the respondent to file its objections against the order of resumption. On 26.2.04, the respondent filed its objections. On 23.11.2004, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition directing the appellant to consider and dis- pose off the objections. On 27.6.2005, the objections were dis- missed by the appellant on the ground that the said plot had become liable for resumption. However, before resumption, an opportunity was given to the respondent to retain the plot at the current price of Rs. 2200/- per sq. meter. The same having not F being accepted by the respondent. the objections were rejected by the appellant and the amount was refunded as per the terms of the Agreement. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. On 12.7.05, the appellant issued a letter to the respondent intimating the with- drawal of the possession of the plot. Aggrieved by the order and during the pendency of the appeal before the commissioner, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court on 18. 7.2005. On 8.5.2006, the High Court without going into the merits of the case, allowed the Writ Petition. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16711 of 2006 HSIDC v. Gopal Chand Kapoor
89. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment dated 26.6.2000 at IMT, Manesar. An Agreement containing the terms and conditions of the allotment was executed between the two parties on 12.9.2000. Physical possession of the plot was taken over on 28.2.2003. c Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 17 426 of 2006 HSIDC v. Prateek Industries
90. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment dated 22.10.1998 at Growth Centre lnvestate Bawal, District Rewari. Physical pos- D session of the plot was offered on 21.5.02. However, the respon- dent failed to take over the possession. On 21.4.04, the appel- lant issued a show-cause' notice to the respondent directing him to start commence construction within a period of two years and to implement the project on or before 21.5.05. The respondent intimated the appellant that the construction would start immedi- ately and requested for a three year extension period. On 17.1.2005, the appellant issued a show-cause notice to the re- spondent for delay in taking the physical possession of the plot and for non-commencement of construction. Vide its letter dated 31.1.05 the respondent informed the appellant that due to loss in its business, they were unable to continue industrial activity and had decided to surrender the plot. It thus requested for a refund. On 25.2.06, the respondent requested for a personal hearing. After hearing the respondent in person, the appellant passed an G order of resumption. Aggrieved by the said order, the respon- dent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. By its order dated 25.8.06, the High Court set aside the Resumption order. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18011 of 2006 HSIDC v. G.M. Precision M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. MIS. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]
91. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial A plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) dated 13.3.02 at IMT, Manesar. On 12.4.02, a final Agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. On 18.11.2003, the respondent took physi- cal possession of the plot. On 2.11.04, a show-cause notice B was issued to the respondent on account of its failure to com- mence construction and default in making the payment of the 4th and 5th installments. Due to unsatisfactory reply of the re- spondent by his letter dated 14.12.04, the appellant resumed the plot by its order dated 18.2.05. Aggrieved by the said order, c the respondent on 11.11.1999 filed an appeal before the Fi- nancial Commissioner Industries. The said appeal was dis- missed by the commissioner on the basis that it was devoid of any merit. Feeling aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dismissing the appeal, the respondent filed a Writ D Petition before the High Court. By an order dated 7.8.06, the High Court set aside the order of resumption. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2331 of 2007 HSIDC v. Matesh Kumar Katya!
92. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) dated 9.4.01 at Kundli Industrial Estate. On 11.04.01, a final agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Vide its letter dated 3.5.01 the appellant offered the respondent the physical possession of the plot. On 24.12.03, the appellant issued a show-cause notice to the respondent for failure to commence construction as well as commercial production within the stipulated time. Respondent on grounds of illness of his mother and other financial constraints G requested for an extension to commence construction. Vide its letter dated 18.1.05 the appellant passed an order of resump- tion of the plot against the respondent and refunded his cheque after making the necessary deductions. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent on 14.1.05 filed an appeal before the Fi- nancial Commissioner Industries. Vide its letter dated 28.8.06, …. the appellant informed the respondent that the commissioner had dismissed his appeal by an order dated 1.8.06 on the ground that it was devoid of any merit. Being aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dismissing the appeal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. On 5.12.06, the High Court set aside the order of resumption. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2702 of 2007 HSIDC v. At Home India P. Ltd. c
93. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) dated 24.5.04 at IMT, Manesar. Allegedly, the petitioner requested the appellant vide its letters dated 15.6.04 and 05.7.04 to change the site of the plot on the ground that the area where it was so situated D was not developed. Allegedly, on 19.8.04, the respondent met the appellant for the change of plot who were then informed that the plot could not be changed. On 22.7.04, the RLA lapsed. On 23.8.04, the respondent remitted 15% of the cost of the plot. Vide its letter dated 12.1.05, the appellant cancelled the allot- E ment and refunded the amount paid by the respondent on the ground that he had failed to comply with clause 3 of the Allot- – ment letter providing for the payment and thus the RLA had lapsed automatically. On 19.1.05, the respondent requested the appellant to reconsider his case. Vide its letter dated 21.3.05 F the appellant informed the respondent that his request had been rejected and refunded the amount so paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Industries which by its order dated 13.1.06, dis- missed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the commissioner, G on 4.9.06, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 5.12.06 while allowing the Writ Petition, quashed the letter dated 12.1.05 and the ap- pellate order on the premise that the respondent had always showed his eagerness to initiate construction and the delay in H making the payment had been on account of a genuine belief M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. M/S. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J] by the respondent that the request for an alternative plot was A pending before the appellant Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2343 of 2007 HSIDC v. RMDK Projects
94. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) dated 23.1.01 at I MT, Manesar. Thereafter, a formal Agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the terms and conditions of the RLA. Allegedly, the respondent made various requests to the appellant for delivering the physical possession of the plot c after making necessary developments. On 19.12.01, the ap- pellant issued a letter thereby offering the respondent physical possession of the plot. On the other hand, on 24.2.03, the ap- pellant issued a notice to the respondent to show-cause why the plot should not be resumed on account of its failure to com- ply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Subse- quently, two more show-cause notices dated 13.10.03 and 8.12.03 were issued. Allegedly, an authorization letter dated 10.2.04 was issued to the respondent for taking over the physi- cal possession. Allegedly, the respondent by its letter dated E 4.2.04 requested the appellant to hand over the possession of the plot. Thereafter by its letter dated 15.2.05, the respondent gave an undertaking to the appellant to commence construe- tion immediately, if it delivered the possession of the plot. On 7.2.05, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent to show- cause as to why the plot should not be resumed in light of the default made. On being unsatisfied by the reply of the respon- dent vide its letter dated 15.2.05 to the show-cause notice, the appellant passed an order of resumption of the plot on 7.7.05. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent on 5.08.05 G preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Industries. Vide its letter dated 19.4.06, the appellant informed the respondent that the commissioner had dismissed his appeal by an order dated 13.1.06 on the ground that it was devoid of any merit. Being aggrieved by the order of resumption and the order dis- missing the appeal, on 25.6.06, the rel?pondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment and final order dated 27 .11.06, set aside the order of resump- tion. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2891 of 2007 HSIDC v. Trikuta
95. Respondent applied for and was allotted an industrial plot vide its Regular Letter of Allotment (RLA) dated 30.6.99 at Industrial Estate, EPIP, Kundli. On 18.1.00, on a request made C by the respondent, the allotment of the said plot was changed due to a change in the constitution of the respondent's com- pany. Subsequently, on 20.1.00, a supplementary agreement was entered into between the parties. As per the terms of the new Agreement, the respondent was to commence construc- D tion within a period of six months. Appellant issued two show- cause notices to the respondent dated 14.8.00 and 26.2.01 for its failure to commence construction. Vide its letter dated 7 .11.01, the respondent sought extension of time to start con- struction and commercial production.
96. Upon the new Industrial Infrastructure Development Policy coming into force, the appellant extended the time for implementation of the project to three years i.e. up to 29.6.02. Allegedly, the respondent made several requests by its various letters dated 26.2.03, 07.5.03, 18.5.03, 20.6.03 and 29.8.03 for extension of time which was purportedly rejected or not con- sidered by the appellant. On 22.1.03, a show-cause notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent to explain why a re- sumption order should not be passed for non-erection of the building within the stipulated time. After being given a personal G opportunity of hearing on 18.6.03, the appellant vide its letter dated 27.8.03 resumed the plot and requested the respondent to collect the cheque of the amount deposited by him. Allegedly, the order of resumption was passed against the respondent without a personal hearing. Being aggrieved by the said order, H the respondent on 28.9.03 preferred an appeal before the Com- M.D., H.S.l.D.C. AND ORS. v. M/S. HARi OM ENTERPRISES AND ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J] missioner of Industries. Vide its letter dated 28.8.06, the appel- lant informed the respondent that the commissioner had dis- · missed his appeal by an order dated 1.8.06 on the ground that it was devoid of any merit. Being aggrieved by the order of re- sumption and the order dismissing the appeal, on 9.10.06, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment and final order dated 12.12.06, set aside the order of resumption.
97. In all these cases, it is difficult to uphold the order of the High Court. But a general offer was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that those who intend to obtain re- c allotment of plot may do so on payment of the price as per the current rate as on the date of the order of the High Court.
98. Before us, several allottees had categorically made a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the prevailing D price as fixed by the appellant- Corporation. Keeping in view the ,,., facts and circumstances of this cases, we are of the opinion that in the event, respondents offer the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High Court, the plot, in question, shall stand re- allotted and should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such reallotment may be made even in cases where we have found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable.
99. Respondents shall deposit the amount within six weeks from date. Appellant shall hand over the possession of the plot, in question, within four weeks thereafter. The highest executive of F Appellant – Corporation shall see to it that the order of this Court is complied with. It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the respondents concerned in making pay- men! in terms of this order, it would be open to the appellant to. take recourse to such action as is permissible in law.
100. Subject, of course, to the directions issued in indi- vidual cases, the appeals are disposed of. In the facts and cir- cumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. D.G. Appeals disposed of