REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  10718      OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.36225 of 2014)

DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS       ….Appellants

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS        ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

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 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

1

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 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 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

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

2

they would “construct the 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 allottee failed to commence

the production in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities and vide

order dated 25.02.2004 resumed the plot forfeiting 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 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 as

well as the production over the plot in question and the appellants

3

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 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 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 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

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

4

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.

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 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.

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

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

5

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 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 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  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 allotment of industrial

plots.   These  plots  are  allotted  at  a  very  reasonable

6

rate/concessional  rate  with  a  view  to  provide  incentives  to  the

allottees/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 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

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 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  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.”

7

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.  

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 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.

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

8

Satyawati.  In the said reply, Rakesh Sarna (GPA) only took excuse

for non-construction 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 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  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 development and generation

of  adequate  employment,  sympathy  cannot  be  the  ground  for

considering the case of the appellants as to their non-compliance of

9

the  terms  and  conditions  of  allotment  especially  for  twenty  long

years after the allotment.

14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that

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  appellate  and  revisional  authority  as  well  as  the

impugned order passed 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

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  to  the  allottees/entrepreneurs  with  intent  to  ensure

10

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 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 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 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:-

11

“….it  is  clear  that  there  was  no  construction  till  the  passing  of 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 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 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

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

12

were not justified in resorting to the extreme step of resumption of

the land. In the case in hand, per contra, 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 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 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 passed an order on 30.11.2004

13

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.

Mrs. Manu Gupta and another in RSA No.908 of 2012, the appeal

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 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 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. Thus,  even  if  some  other  similarly  situated  persons  have  been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does

14

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 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)”

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 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 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

15

are ready to pay the current 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  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,  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, 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

16

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 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

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 the High Court rightly refused

to interfere with the order of the Revisional 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.

17

23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

…………….……………J.  [R. BANUMATHI]

…………….……………J.      [INDIRA BANERJEE]

New Delhi; October 25, 2018

18