Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. MODERN ENTERPRISES LTD., versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s. Modern Enterprises Ltd., v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-17176-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5874 (24 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 17176 OF 2004 (O&M)

Date of decision : May 15, 2006

* * * * *

M/s. Modern Enterprises Ltd., ............Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. B.S Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

Replication filed by the petitioner is taken on record. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the respondents.

It appears from the facts on the record that the petitioner was allotted a plot No.2818 measuring 2000 Sq. yards on May 20, 1977.

However, later on the number of the plot was changed to Plot No. 2394 vide memo no. 7805 dated 19.6.1978. The petitioner made the payment of first installment in the year 1979 and required the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak to deliver the possession of the plot in question. As per the stipulations in the terms of the allotment, the possession was to be delivered after the payment of 25% of the tentative sale price. The petitioner received a communication dated September 20, 1979 to the effect that he could take the possession of Plot No.2394 measuring 3209.26 Sq. meters and the possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner on October 10, 1979 (Annexure P-5). Accordingly, the respondents maintain that the possession of the aforesaid plot was delivered to the petitioner.

On February 12, 1981, the District Town Planner to the Estate officer, HUDA sought the cancellation of the Plot No.2394 on account of the fact that a portion of the aforesaid plot had not been duly acquired by the HUDA and therefore, recommended that an alternative plot be allotted to the petitioner. The matter remained pending inter-se between the petitioner and the District Town Planner to the Estate Officer, HUDA for some time.

Consequently, on account of the aforesaid controversy, the petitioner could not raise any construction on the plot in question.

Further, a resumption notice dated February 23, 1982 was issued by the respondents to the petitioner for showing cause as to why the construction had not been raised at the site within the stipulated time. The petitioner duly replied to the aforesaid notice and maintained that since District Town Planner had recommended the cancellation of the plot, therefore, the construction could not be carried out. The respondents persisted with their stand and required the petitioner to deposit interest and penalty. The petitioner submitted to the aforesaid demand and made the requisite deposits. However, it is maintained by the petitioner that on account of the aforesaid dispute, the possession of the site was not handed over to the petitioner. The Estate Officer repeatedly required the petitioner to raise and complete the construction by September 18, 1985 and in this regard various communications were issued to the petitioner-. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid communications requesting to take appropriate steps in the controversy with regard to non-acquisition of a portion of the plot. He also maintained that he could be handed over some alternative plot.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has now approached this Court through the present writ petition making a grievance of the inaction of the respondents.

On November 4, 2004, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had made a statement before this Court to the effect that his client shall be satisfied if possession of the duly acquired portion of the plot No.2394 is given to it and the balance portion be given only when the land is properly acquired. It was also stated that in case HUDA is not in a position to acquire the balance land of Plot No.2394, the petitioner shall not press its claim for allotment of the balance area anywhere else. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stands by the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the petitioner on November 4, 2004.

Consequently, it is argued that the possession of the acquired portion of the plot, which is not in dispute be handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner be permitted to raise construction on the same in accordance with law.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-HUDA has maintained that the petitioner had been already handed over the possession of the plot in the year 1979 itself and a possession certificate dated October 10, 1979 had been issued and therefore, the petitioner is guilty of lapses and is trying to take advantage of its own wrong.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival claims made by the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, we are satisfied that the petitioner had been allotted a plot measuring 3209.26 sq. meters on June 19, 1978. Although vide Annexure P-5 possession certificate, the possession of the aforesaid plot has been shown to have been given to the petitioner, but, the other documents placed on record by the parties show that a serious dispute arose with regard to the entire area of the aforesaid plot having not been acquired by HUDA at any point of time. In fact, Sh. Aman Chaudhary has also stated before the Court that a writ petition is already pending on behalf of some land owners whose land was sought to be acquired and on account of some interim directions passed by this Court, some portion of the aforesaid plot has not been acquired so far.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the present petition and direct that the Estate Officer, HUDA- respondent no.2 shall hand over the vacant possession of the portion of the plot which is not in dispute and the petitioner shall be required to raise construction thereupon in accordance with law. However, the remaining portion of the land which is still in dispute and which is not yet been acquired, if acquired at any subsequent stage, shall also be handed over to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the aforesaid remaining portion is not acquired on account of some legal difficulties then the petitioner shall have no subsisting claim with regard to the allotment of the balance area.

Necessary process in this regard shall be completed by the Estate Officer within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

15.5.2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.