Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sansar Fan Industries v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. & Ohters - WRIT - C No. 13242 of 1987 [2003] RD-AH 416 (30 October 2003)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).





Sansar Fan Industries, Ghaziabad ------                    Petitioner


U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation,

Ghaziabad & anr.   ------                  Respondents


Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J

Hon'ble R.C. Pandey, J.

(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)

This writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to respondents to restore the allotment of plot no. 59/2 Shahibabad Industrial Area, District Ghaziabad, to the petitioner, and hand over the possession of the same.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a Partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Vide order dated 20th April, 1981 the respondent U.P.S.I.D.C. allotted the aforesaid plot, measuring 18,752.68 sq. Yds., to the petitioner and the possession thereof was handed over to it on 15.4.1981. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.84,387.10 in April, 1981. As the remaining installments were not paid in time, the respondent no. 1 cancelled the said allotment vide order dated 10.8.1984 and the possession of the plot was taken back.

Considering the representation of the petitioner dated 24.8.1984 along with which a Bank Draft of Rs.1,00,000/- and in furtherance of the letter of the petitioner dated 8.8.1985, the respondents agreed for  restoration of the possession and allotment, provided the remaining balance amount be deposited within a period of one week. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 9.9.1985 and by that time, the total amount of Rs.5,98,140.90 had been paid to the respondent no. 1, and only a sum of Rs.30,000/- was remained as balance.

Vide letter dated 28.9.1985 (Annex. 9) the respondent directed the petitioner to submit the plan and complete the construction within a period of one year, and on this condition, the restoration was to be made. Petitioner submitted the application for construction on the plot vide letter dated 5th October, 1985 along with plan etc. (Annex. 10). However, the correspondence continued between the parties for furnishing the information regarding construction or level of construction. In the meanwhile, on 15.2.1986 (Annex. 13) the petitioner was asked to deposit a further amount of Rs.67,648/-, including the interest on the balance premium upto 31.12.1985 and interest on restoration charges due up to 31.12.1985 and second installment of restoration levied due on 1.1.1986. Vide letter dated 4th March, 1986 the petitioner submitted that it had already deposited a sum of Rs.5,89,590.40 and the further time was prayed for depositing the balance amount, with an undertaking that the remaining installment shall be paid in due course.

Vide letter dated 22.3.1986, 30 days' time was granted to deposit the said amount. Vide letter dated 5th August, 1986 (Annex. 19) a sum of Rs.1,62,226.70 was asked to be deposited, failing which, the allotment would be withdrawn. As the said amount was not paid, vide impugned order dated 26.3.1987, the offer of restoration dated 20.5.1985 was withdrawn. Immediately after receiving the said letter, the petitioner vide letter dated 25th April, 1987 submitted that only a sum of Rs.30,000/- was balance and it could not be deposited because of the illness of the representative of the Firm, and the same would be deposited shortly. However, vide letter dated 15.5.1987 petitioner was informed that its request was not accepted. Petitioner subsequently also made a representation raising the dispute about the entitlement of the respondent to make the recovery vide letter dated 11th June, 1987 (Annex. 23), also pointing out that the Firm had already deposited the amount to the tune of Rs.7,58,490.70 in principal, as well as interest, and having submitted all the required documents for execution of fresh lease agreement and also the building plan and other necessary documents satisfied all the conditions long back. The cancellation of allotment or restoration of the possession was unwarranted and unjustified. As no action was taken, this writ petition was filed.

This Court vide order dated 17.7.1987 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks. A further direction was issued that possession of the plot shall be restored to the petitioner forthwith or to show cause. It appears that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- immediately, which was accepted by the respondent. But, possession was not restored and reply was filed on 23.2.1988, submitting that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the allotment was cancelled and petitioner was dispossessed, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement, and the action taken by them is strictly in accordance with law.

More so, as the plot allotted to the petitioner was measuring 18752.62 sq. yds. and as per the policy decision taken by the respondents, such a big plot was not meant for allotment. Five smaller plots had been carved out by the Corporation and allotted to five industrialists. This court considering this fact discharged the interim order passed earlier.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, a large number of affidavits have been filed annexing the copies of various letters, wherein claims and counter-claims have been made by the parties.

Undisputed fact remains that petitioner failed to deposit the installments as per the terms of the agreement However, it deposited the sum at a belated stage, paying the interest etc., and the same was accepted by the respondents. The cancellation order etc. had also been withdrawn after charging the amount when impugned order was passed. There was outstanding dues of Rs.30,000/- only. Petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the direction issued by this Court while passing the interim order. The interim order stood vacated on the statements of fact made by the respondents in counter affidavit that the said plot had been carved out into 5 small plots and allotted to several industrialists. This fact is not factually correct, for the reason the letter dated 5.3.2001 written by the Corporation to the District Collector, Ghaziabad and Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad reveals the different story. True translation of the relevant part thereof reads as under:-

"Sub: Removal of encroachment from industrial area Site No.4 Shahibabad, Ghaziabad,Plot No. 59/2.



Your attention is drawn to the fact that in industrial area Site No. 4 Shahibabad Plot No. 59/2, measuring 98752.68 sq. Yds., meant for industrial purpose is lying vacant. On the sites of the same plot towards the abadi area of village Jhandapur some anti-social elements have encroached upon the same by putting jhuggi jhoparis, and in case this illegal encroachment is not removed forthwith, the anti-social elements will have an encroachment on the entire plot. This will cause great financial loss to the Corporation and cause a threat to the security as well as the environment of the area. Therefore, it is necessary to remove the encroachment.


Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not satisfy the Court as under what circumstances the affidavit has been filed on 8.8.1987 that the said plot has been divided into 5 smaller plots and allotted to industrialists. Had this fact not been mentioned in the counter affidavit, this Court could have disposed of the writ petition in 1987 itself and there was no occasion for the Court to discharge the interim order passed by it earlier.

It is a matter of great concern that a Corporation which is a public undertaking has filed an affidavit, the contents of which have been admittedly false and proved to be false by the letter of the same authority, i.e., Regional Manager of the same Corporation dated 5.3.2001. The matter requires to be considered seriously and the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to explain as to under what circumstances such a false affidavit has been filed. Even otherwise if the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as directed by the interim order of this Court and the respondents had accepted it, and the petitioner was willing to abide by other terms and conditions of the Agreement etc., the Corporation was expected to act reasonably and not in such an arbitrary and unreasonable manner.

In view of the above, though the case requires initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt against the officers of the Corporation for furnishing such a false information by filing a counter affidavit, petition succeeds and is allowed.

The respondents are directed to restore the allotment as well as possession of the Plot No. 59/2 Shahibabad Industrial Area, District Ghaziabad within a period of two months from today and inform the petitioner as what remains the outstanding dues on the date of cancellation, i.e., passing of the impugned order dated 15.5.1987, and the same shall be recovered from the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum.




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


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 |

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