DALIP SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

608                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   12 S.C.R. 608               [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A                        DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS
                                        v.
                    STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                        (Civil Appeal No. 10718 of 2018)
B                             OCTOBER 25, 2018
            [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
             Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977: s. 17(4) –
      Resumption of plot – Allotment of industrial plot, however non-
      commencement of production by allottee for a period of almost 20
C
      years – Resumption of plot by the Estate Officer – Upheld by the
      Authorities and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Not
      called for – Court can interfere with the revocation of resumption
      of land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in
      violation of the procedure – Terms and conditions of allotment
D     clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions
      of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance
      with the provisions of s. 17 – Order of resumption of the plot was as
      per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High
      Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional
      authority – Furthermore, land/industrial plots now becoming very
E
      scarce, governed by the present Estate Management Procedure, the
      allottees cannot seek for revocation of resumption by contending
      that they are ready to pay the current market rate.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F           HELD: 1.1 The allotment of the industrial plot to RN as
      MD of M/S SD are not only governed by the provisions of the
      Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Rules
      and Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of
      the industrial policy of the State of Haryana. The allotment was
      also subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment. As per
G     clause (18) of the allotment, the allottee has to complete the
      construction within two years from the date of offer of possession.
      Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of breach of any other
      condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in
      accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act,
H
                                       608
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 609


1977. The appellants have admittedly not commenced the                A
industrial production on the plot for twenty long years after
allotment and delivery of possession. The appellants seem to
have woken upon only after issuance of the Show Cause Notice.
Evidently, there is breach of condition of allotment of the plot.
[Para 10] [615-B-C, F-G]
                                                                      B
      1.2 In reply to the Show Cause Notice, one RS claiming
himself as General Power of Attorney filed the reply. In the said
reply, RS (GPA) has not stated anything about the illness or the
disability of the sole proprieter. In the said reply, RS (GPA) only
took excuse for non-construction of the building and non-
production stating that original documents like Allotment Letter;     C
Possession Letter; No Due Certificate; Deed of Conveyance;
Occupation Certificate; and Building Plans were missing and he
has asked for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant documents;
and that they would construct the building within six months from
the date of receipt of missing documents. It cannot be understood     D
that why the said RS (GPA) should undertake to construct the
building within six months from the date of receipt of missing
documents. [Para 12] [616-C-D]
       1.3 The industrial plots were allotted at a very reasonable
rates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentives to the     E
allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growth
and economic development of the State and generation of
adequate employment opportunities. These allotments are not
only governed by the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder but also by the provisions of the
industrial policy of the State. Construction of building and          F
commencement of production are the integral part of the terms
and conditions of the order of allotment. In such kind of allotment
of industrial plots, based on government industrial policy with
twin objectives of economic development and generation of
adequate employment, sympathy cannot be the ground for                G
considering the case of the appellants as to their non-compliance
of the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty
long years after the allotment. The appellate and Revisional
authority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted for the

                                                                      H
610            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     observation that the buildings were not constructed for twenty
      long years after allotment. If the construction of the building was
      really complete, the appellants could have very well filed the
      completion certificate; but that was not done. [Para 15] [617-C-
      E]
B          1.4 Even assuming that for some other allottees, order of
      resumption of plot had been quashed/cancelled, the appellants
      cannot claim equality of treatment. Article 14 is a positive concept
      and cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner. [Para
      19] [619-B-C]
C           State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011)
            3 SCC 436 : [2011] 2 SCR 704 – referred to.
            1.5 When allotment of industrial plots is governed by Estate
      Management Procedure-EMP, the prayer of the appellants that
      they are ready to pay the current market rate for the industrial
D     plot cannot be considered. The allotment of Industrial Plot to
      RN was in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s SD. The plot
      was thus, allotted to the partnership firm. The appellants have
      not been able to show as to how they stepped into the shoes of
      the partnership firm, apart from the mere fact that they are legal
      heirs of RN. At the time of making application for allotment of
E     industrial plot, the applicant has to clearly disclose all the facts
      regarding the type of industry to be started, licence if necessary
      under law, project report, estimated cost of project, details
      regarding time required in completing the project, details of
      employees required, source of fund etc. The project so submitted
F     is then approved by the competent authority after considering
      its viability. The applicants are then issued letter of intent/
      provisional allotment letter with condition to complete the other
      formalities within the stipulated period of time and after completion
      of formalities, regular allotment letter is issued in favour of the
      applicant. The undertaking of the production as per the approved
G     project is the foundation for the allotment of the industrial plots
      which is with twin object of economic development and generation
      of employment opportunities. Over the years, the State has
      undergone substantive changes and economic growth. Land/
      industrial plots now becoming very scarce, governed by the
H     present EMP, the appellants cannot seek for revocation of
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 611


resumption by contending that they are ready to pay the current          A
market rate. [Para 20, 21] [620-B-F]
      1.6 The court can interfere with the revocation of
resumption of land only if the executive has not carried out its
duty or acted in violation of the procedure. The terms and
conditions of allotment clearly stipulates that in the event of breach   B
of any of the conditions of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume
the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the
HUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumption of the plot is as per
the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High
Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional
authority. The appellants having failed before all the forums            C
including the High Court and also the Revisional authority, there
is no serious infirmity or illegality in the order of resumption of
the plot. [Para 22] [620-G-H; 621-A]
      Anup Chauhan v. The Financial Commissioner &
      Secretary and others CWP No.15672 of 2008; Haryana                 D
      Urban Development Authority, Faridabad & Another
      v. Mrs. Manu Gupta and another RSA No.908 of 2012
      – referred to.
      Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and others
      (2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235 –                      E
      distinguished.
                       Case Law Reference

[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235        distinguished           Para 16
[2011] 2 SCR 704                referred to             Para 19          F

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10718
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2014 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 19256 of 2014.      G
      Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Adv. for the
appellants.
       Gautam Sharma, Manish Paliwal, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs. for
the respondents.
                                                                         H
612            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed
      by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP
      No.19256 of 2014 in and by which the High Court dismissed the Writ
B     Petition filed by the appellants thereby upholding the orders of the
      Authorities resuming the Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-
      II, Panchkula allotted to M/s. Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills.
             3. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of this appeal are
      that Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula was
C     allotted to Rabinder Nath, in his capacity as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy &
      Oil Mills vide Memo No.21015 dated 25.07.1984 and the possession of
      the said plot was given on 19.09.1984. Letter of allotment was subject
      to the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)
      Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations applicable thereunder as
D     amended from time to time and also the Industrial Policy of the State of
      Haryana. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, specifically
      Condition No.18, required the allottee to complete the construction over
      the allotted plot within two years of the date of offer of possession after
      completing the necessary formalities governing the construction of the
      building; otherwise the plot was liable to be resumed and the whole or
E     any part of the money in respect of the same is liable to be forfeited in
      accordance with the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977.
             4. Since the allottee Rabinder Nath (NRI) did not comply with
      the terms and conditions of the allotment and did not commence the
      production within the stipulated time, Show Cause Notice dated
F     26.08.2003 was issued to the allottee under Section 17(4) of the HUDA
      Act, 1977. One Rakesh Sarna claiming to be the Power of Attorney
      sent the reply dated 14.11.2003 saying that the original documents are
      missing and requested for issuance of duplicate copies. In the said reply,
      the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) stated that they would “construct the
G     building within six months from the date of receipt of the missing
      documents.” Not being satisfied with the reply received, the allottee
      was offered an opportunity of personal hearing vide Memo dated
      06.01.2004. The said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) appeared and gave a written
      reply. On perusal of the reply dated 14.11.2003 and report submitted by
      the Junior Engineer of HUDA, the Estate Officer, HUDA held that the
H     allottee failed to commence the production in spite of grant of sufficient
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 613
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

opportunities and vide order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting        A
10 per cent of the consideration money.
      5. Being aggrieved by the order of resumption of plot, Satyawati
wife of Rabinder Nath through her GPA Rakesh Sarna filed appeal under
Section 17(5) of the HUDA Act, 1977 before the appellate authority-
Administrator, HUDA. During the pendency of said appeal, the application         B
was moved on 07.03.2006 to the effect that the appellant Satyawati had
expired on 03.10.2005 leaving behind a will dated 02.09.2005 in favour
of her four children namely the appellants. The said application was
allowed and the appellants were impleaded as parties. The appeal was
dismissed by respondent No.3-Administrator, HUDA vide order dated
11.01.2008 on the ground that the appellants did not start the construction      C
as well as the production over the plot in question and the appellants
have not been able to give even a single reason for not starting construction
as well as production for a long time of twenty years. It was held that
the reasons stated by the power of attorney that the original papers
were lost somewhere in September, 2003 does not carry any weight for             D
explaining the delay of twenty years.
       6. The order of the Appellate authority dated 11.01.2008 was
assailed by the appellants before Principal Secretary, Government of
Haryana, Department of Town and Country Planning and Urban Estates
(the Revisional authority) under Section 30(2) of HUDA Act, 1977 and             E
the same was dismissed by order dated 15.04.2014 inter alia on the
following grounds:-
  •      That the allotment of industrial plot was made at concessional
        rates with a view to generate employment for the unemployed
        and keeping in view the economic development of the State and            F
        the allottee has defeated the very purpose of allotment of such
        industrial plot by not commencing the production for twenty years
        from the date of allotment and delivery of possession;
  •      That the revision preferred by the appellants is barred by limitation
        having been filed after a delay of one year and three months and         G
        that too without any application for condonation of delay; and
  •      That the plot was allotted to M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills and
        the appellants could not show how they stepped into the shoes
        of the firm and it was an act of the appellants to appropriate the
        plot to the exclusion of the legal heirs of the partners of the firm.    H
614             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the appellants
      filed Writ Petition (C) No.19256 of 2014 before the High Court which
      came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.09.2014. The
      High Court noted that as rightly observed by the Revisional authority,
      the plot was allotted at a concessional price with the object of commencing
      production or industrial activities within a reasonable time which would
B
      generate employment for the unemployed youth and also generate revenue
      in the form of leviable taxes for the public exchequer besides adding to
      the economic development of the nation. The High Court held that the
      failure of the allottee to start production for such a long time after the
      allotment defeated the very purpose of allotment of the plot.
C            8. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Gautam Sharma, learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the impugned
      order and materials placed on record.
             9. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that the appellants-legal
D     heirs of the allottee Rabinder Nath, MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills
      were unsuccessful before the Estate Officer, Appellate authority and
      the Revisional authority and also before the High Court. All the authorities
      as well as the High Court recorded concurrent findings that the allottee
      has not commenced production for twenty long years from the date of
      allotment and handing over of possession till passing of the order of
E     resumption in 2004 and also building was not constructed and there was
      breach of terms and conditions of the allotment and such non-
      commencement of production defeated the very purpose of allotment of
      such industrial plots. The question falling for consideration is whether
      such concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities and also by the
F     High Court suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference by
      this Court.
             10. With a view to ensure rapid industrial growth on sustainable
      basis to achieve the twin objects of economic development and generation
      of adequate employment, the industrial estates/areas were established
      in order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial policy was framed by
G
      the State of Haryana aiming at balancing regional development. After
      completion of various formalities, Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area,
      Phase-II, Panchkula was allotted vide letter dated 25.07.1984 and
      possession thereof was delivered on 19.09.1984. The undertaking of
      the production as per the approved project is the foundation for the
H     allotment of industrial plots. These plots are allotted at a very reasonable
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 615
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

rate/concessional rate with a view to provide incentives to the allottees/     A
entrepreneurs with intent to encourage industrialization and growth in
employment opportunities. These allotments are not only governed by
the provisions of the HUDA Act, 1977 and the Rules and Regulations
framed thereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy of
the State of Haryana. The allotment of the industrial plot in question to
                                                                               B
Rabinder Nath as MD of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills was subject to the
terms and conditions of the allotment. As per clause (18) of the allotment,
the allottee has to complete the construction within two years from the
date of offer of possession. Clause (11) stipulates that in the event of
breach of any other condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume
the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA           C
Act, 1977. Clauses 18 and 11 read as under:
        “18. You will have to complete the construction within two years
        of the date of offer of possession, after petting the plans of the
        proposed building approved from the competent authority in
        accordance with the regulations governing the erection of
                                                                               D
        buildings. This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if he
        is satisfied the non-construction of the building was due to reasons
        beyond your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed
        and the whole or part of the money paid if any, in respect of it
        forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. You
        shall not erect any building or make any alteration/addition without   E
        prior permission of the Estate Officer, no fragmentation of any
        land or building shall be permitted.
        11. In the event of breach of any other condition of transfer the
        Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the
        provisions of Section 17 of the Act.”                                  F
The appellants have admittedly not commenced the industrial production
on the plot for twenty long years after allotment and delivery of
possession. The appellants seem to have woken upon only after issuance
of the Show Cause Notice. Evidently, there is breach of condition of
allotment of the plot.
                                                                               G
       11. Contention of the appellants is that Rabinder Nath (NRI), MD
of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills who was allotted the plot, was detected
with cancer and died of cancer in 1987. Satyawati Devi w/o Rabinder
Nath who became the sole proprietor of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills
also remained disabled and she was also detected with cancer in 2004
and she was getting disability allowance from 1992 to 2003 as per the          H
616             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     documents on record. It is therefore, the submission of the appellants
      that legal representatives could not do anything or take any constructive
      action from 1985 till 2003 despite the fact that they have constructed a
      building without a completion certificate. It is the contention of the
      appellants that the default was not wilful and extreme step of resumption
      of land ought not to have been resorted by HUDA.
B
             12. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, one
      Rakesh Sarna claiming himself as General Power of Attorney filed the
      reply dated 14.11.2003. In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) has not
      stated anything about the illness or the disability of Satyawati. In the
      said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) only took excuse for non-construction
C     of the building and non-production stating that original documents like (i)
      Allotment Letter; (ii) Possession Letter; (iii) No Due Certificate; (iv)
      Deed of Conveyance; (v) Occupation Certificate; and (vi) Building Plans
      were missing and he has asked for issuance of duplicate copies of relevant
      documents. The said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) further stated that they would
D     construct the building within six months from the date of receipt of missing
      documents.
             13. As pointed out earlier, the allotment of industrial plot was with
      the twin objects of economic development and generation of adequate
      employment. In order to achieve the said purpose, the industrial policy
      was framed by the State of Haryana aiming at balanced regional
E     development and with a view to generate adequate employment. The
      allotment of industrial plot was at concessional rate and was subject to
      terms and conditions and the allottee was bound to comply with the
      terms and conditions. In such kind of allotment of industrial plots, based
      on government industrial policy with twin objectives of economic
F     development and generation of adequate employment, sympathy cannot
      be the ground for considering the case of the appellants as to their non-
      compliance of the terms and conditions of allotment especially for twenty
      long years after the allotment.
            14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that
G     the opportunity of personal hearing rendered was a mere formality and
      no opportunity was given to the appellants for commencement of
      production. Contention of the appellants is that though the show cause
      Notice dated 26.08.2003 and the Resumption order dated 25.02.2004
      were passed on the ground of non-commencement of production; the

H
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 617
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

appellate and revisional authority as well as the impugned order passed        A
by the High Court upheld the resumption of the plot on altogether distinct
premise of non-construction of the building. Learned senior counsel had
drawn our attention to the Resumption order dated 25.02.2004 passed
by the Estate Officer wherein it is stated that the “plot and building
constructed thereon…..” are resumed in exercise of powers vested under
                                                                               B
Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977. The learned senior counsel
submitted that buildings were actually constructed by the allottee and
the inconsistency between show cause notice and the order of Revisional
authority was not kept in view by the High Court.
       15. As discussed earlier, the industrial plots were allotted at a
very reasonable rates/concessional rates with a view to provide incentives     C
to the allottees/entrepreneurs with intent to ensure industrial growth and
economic development of the State and generation of adequate
employment opportunities. These allotments are not only governed by
the provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 Rules and Regulations framed
thereunder but also by the provisions of the industrial policy of the State.   D
Construction of building and commencement of production are the integral
part of the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. The appellate
and Revisional authority as well as the High Court cannot be faulted for
the observation that the buildings were not constructed for twenty long
years after allotment. If the construction of the building was really
complete, the appellants could have very well filed the completion             E
certificate; but that was not to be so. It is pertinent to note that in the
reply dated 14.11.2003 of the said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) of Satyawati, it
is stated that “we will construct the building within six months from
the receipt of missing documents”. We fail to understand that why the
said Rakesh Sarna (GPA) should undertake to construct the building             F
within six months from the date of receipt of missing documents. In this
regard, we may usefully refer to the order of the Revisional authority
which has referred to the comments of the Estate Officer received vide
Memo No.19584 dated 23.12.2013 where it was stated as under:-
        “….it is clear that there was no construction till the passing of      G
        resumption order and whatever construction was raised, was
        raised illegally after expiry of stipulated period. Therefore, on
        this ground also, the Revision Petition deserves dismissal…..”
      16. Contending that the extreme step of resumption of plot is
erroneous, the learned senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance       H
618            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A upon Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and others,(2004)
  2 SCC 130 wherein it was inter alia held that one of the questions
  which the Estate Officer must always pose is as to whether the drastic
  power of resumption and forfeiture has been taken recourse to as a last
  resort. It was submitted that the present case is not the one where the
  extreme step of resumption of plot ought to have been resorted to. The
B
  facts of the said case are distinguished from the case in hand. In Teri
  Oat Estates case, the appellants thereon were merely to pay the balance
  amount of 75 per cent of the consideration amount in instalments. The
  appellants, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, not only paid the
  entire amount but also paid ground rent and further paid 10 per cent
C penalty on the forfeited amount. Teri Oat Estates case, thus related to
  the default in payment of instalments of premium and interest thereon
  and ground rent in terms of allotment; but default was found to be not
  wilful and dishonest. In such facts and circumstances of the said case,
  this Court held that the authorities were not justified in resorting to the
  extreme step of resumption of the land. In the case in hand, per contra,
D
  the allottee has failed to complete construction within the stipulated time
  as per condition No.18 and commence production for a period of almost
  twenty years despite there being a clear stipulation in the allotment letter
  requiring them to complete construction within a period of two years.
  They have also failed to explain sufficient cause for this inordinate delay
E occasioned by them. As rightly held by the authorities, the allottee has
  defeated the very purpose of allotment of such industrial plot.
         17. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has also drawn our
  attention to the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
  Chandigarh passed in CWP No.15672 of 2008 Anup Chauhan v. The
F Financial Commissioner & Secretary and others wherein the High
  Court directed the Respondent Authority to consider the claim of the
  petitioner. However, the facts of the case in hand have to be distinguished
  from those of the Anup Chauhan case. In the writ petition, the petitioners
  had applied for an extension till 2006 to complete the project and had
  also paid the extension fee for the same and the Estate Officer had
G
  passed an order on 30.11.2004 resuming the plot and in such facts, the
  High Court set aside the order of resumption of plot.
           18. Similarly, in another case relied upon by the appellants, i.e.
      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad & Another v.
H
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 619
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Mrs. Manu Gupta and another in RSA No.908 of 2012, the appeal                    A
filed by HUDA was dismissed with a direction that HUDA cannot be
allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and burden the respondent
with further payment, despite their making the payment under the order
of the court, which the appellant HUDA deliberately avoided to accept.
But in the case in hand, it is the appellants who have defaulted in fulfilling
                                                                                 B
the terms and conditions of the allotment letter for a long time of about
twenty years.
       19. All the judgments relied upon by the appellants are
distinguishable on facts. Even assuming that for some other allottees,
order of resumption of plot had been quashed/cancelled, the appellants
cannot claim equality of treatment. Article 14 is a positive concept and         C
cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner. In State of Orissa
and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, it was held as
under:-
        “56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant
        to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality.     D
        Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been
        granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order
        does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same
        relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC
        745, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 3 SCC                  E
        548, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC
        164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan
        Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24, Upendra Narayan
        Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
        Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422)”
                                                                                 F
       20. This Court issued notice (vide order dated 07.01.2015) on the
basis of submissions made on behalf of the appellants that they are
agreeable to pay the present market value of the plot in question. The
learned senior counsel Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the appellants
submitted that the appellants are ready to pay the present market value
of the plot in question. Refuting the said submission, the learned counsel       G
for HUDA has submitted that at present, there is no HUDA policy to
allot the resumed industrial plot on the current market price. It was
submitted that allotment of industrial plots at present is governed by
Estate Management Procedure (EMP), 2011 and the subsequent EMP,
2015 as per which, industrial plot is to be allotted or disposed of only as      H
620             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     per Regulation/policy. It was submitted that industrial plots are disposed
      of as per EMP and in this regard, the learned counsel has drawn our
      attention to the counter filed as to the EMP governing the allotment of
      the industrial plots including the invitation of applications through
      advertisements. When allotment of industrial plots is thus governed by
      EMP, the prayer of the appellants that they are ready to pay the current
B
      market rate for the industrial plot cannot be considered.
             21. The allotment of Industrial Plot No.306, Industrial Area, Phase-
      II, Panchkula in 1984 to Rabinder Nath was in his capacity as Managing
      Director of M/s Shiva Dairy & Oil Mills. The plot was thus allotted to
      the partnership firm. The appellants have not been able to show as to
C     how they stepped into the shoes of the partnership firm, apart from the
      mere fact that they are legal heirs of Rabinder Nath. As discussed
      earlier, at the time of making application for allotment of industrial plot,
      the applicant has to clearly disclose all the facts regarding the type of
      industry to be started, licence if necessary under law, project report,
D     estimated cost of project, details regarding time required in completing
      the project, details of employees required, source of fund etc. The project
      so submitted is then approved by the competent authority after
      considering its viability. The applicants are then issued letter of intent/
      provisional allotment letter with condition to complete the other formalities
      within the stipulated period of time and after completion of formalities,
E     regular allotment letter is issued in favour of the applicant. As pointed
      out earlier, the undertaking of the production as per the approved project
      is the foundation for the allotment of the industrial plots which is with
      twin object of economic development and generation of employment
      opportunities. Over the years, the State has undergone substantive
F     changes and economic growth. Land/industrial plots now becoming very
      scarce, governed by the present EMP, the appellants cannot seek for
      revocation of resumption by contending that they are ready to pay the
      current market rate.
             22. The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of
G     land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violation
      of the procedure. Clause (11) of the terms and conditions of allotment
      clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions of
      transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the
      provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumption
      of the plot is as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and
H
DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 621
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional     A
authority. The appellants having failed before all the forums including
the High Court and also the Revisional authority, we do not find any
serious infirmity or illegality in the order of resumption of the plot and
therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
        23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.                    B
Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                 C




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H