- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: O R D E R Rajnish Kumar VS. RIICO & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETIION NO.1001/1996 UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. DATE OF ORDER : 16th August, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr.RK Singhal, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Bhansali ] Mr.Vivek Shrimali ], for the respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents by which the petitioner's allotment of 10 plots vide allotment letter dated 18th Dec., 1989 was cancelled and for recovery of the amount @ of Rs.30 per sq. meter paid by the petitioner for getting the plots restored to petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted 10 plots no.64 to 73 situated in Industrial Area, Sadulshar vide order dated 18th Dec., 1989 (Annex.1). The petitioner was supposed to complete construction of the industrial unit and commenced the industrial production from the said unit within - 2 - a period of two years. However, the petitioner could not do that and, therefore, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 8th April, 1991 by the respondent pointing out his default. The petitioner vide letter dated 29th April, 1991 tried to explain the reason about his not developing the land for the purpose of construction of the industrial unit as well as by this letter the petitioner submitted that the land is in irregular shape and has more dips and in case, the petitioner will develop the land, he will have to incur more expenditure than the cost of the plots, which he paid. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with further notices and ultimately, petitioner's plots were cancelled vide order dated 5th April, 1995 (Annex.9) The petitioner requested for reallotting the plot or quashing the cancellation order dated 5th April, 1995, but that request was firstly turned down by the respondents vide communication dated 20th Oct., 1995, but latter on the respondents agreed to regularize the plots but on payment of Rs.30/- per sq. meter. The petitioner submitted that it will be unreasonable to demand regularization charges from the petitioner @ of Rs.30 per sq. meter. The petitioner after raising this objection agreed to deposit the amount in installments and in turn, the plots were regularized. The petitioner deposited the demanded amount for restoration of - 3 - the plots. The petitioner's 5 plots out of 10 plots were restored and the petitioner got the lease deed executed for the 5 plots in question. The petitioner's contention is that since his plots were not developed, therefore, the respondents should not have cancelled the petitioner's plots. Further, the respondents had no right to recover any amount from the petitioner, therefore, respondents be directed to refund the amount which they recovered from the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents allotted a big chunk of land on request of the petitioner, but that land was absolutely undeveloped and for development of that land, the petitioner would have to incur huge expenditure. The petitioner's request for permitting him to raise construction according to the shape and size of the plots by giving proper set backs was considered after about two years. In view of the above reasons, the petitioner could not install the industrial unit on the land in question and because of no fault of the petitioner, the respondents charged money and recovered from the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents should not have sold the land without developing it and could not impose condition of completion of industrial unit within the stipulated period when the nature of land does not permit. - 4 - Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the fact that petitioner was defaulter and this fact is admitted fact. The inquiry about the default on the part of the respondents cannot be conducted in the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that since the petitioner purchased the plots with open eyes, therefore, he has no right to say that the plots were defective. It is submitted that the plots were allotted on concessional rate with clear aims and objects that the allottee shall construct the industrial unit and start production in time. It is also submitted that after accepting the order of the respondents of restoration of the plot on payment of additional cost of Rs. 30 per sq. meter, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the order. It is submitted that petitioner took the benefit of the order and still wants to challenge the order, which is not permissible. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. So far as allotment of plots to the petitioner is concerned, that is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to construct the industrial unit and did not start commercial production from the said unit. There may be several reasons for that, but it appears that plots were allotted in Dec., 1989 and petitioner raised his objection in - 5 - the year 1991. The petitioner if was not satisfied with the condition of the plots and could not have constructed the industrial unit then he could have surrendered plots at that very time. The petitioner himself thereafter, constructed the industrial unit as stated by the petitioner himself then that was after delay of about almost 6 years. It is not the case of the petitioner that he could construct the industries because respondents have developed the land. Apart from it there is no equity in favour of the petitioner because of the reason that the respondent who is not a private litigant and acting for the speedy industrial development and if the respondent has asked for amount for restoration of the plot in accordance with their own norms applicable to all, then writ jurisdiction is not available for settlement of the dispute arising out of contractual matter. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-