CWP No.10544 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10544 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 9, 2011 SIRI KRISHAN ...PETITIONER VERSUS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ...RESPONDENTS CORPORATAION LTD. & ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. KABIR SARIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. AVTAR SINGH BAKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition contains a challenge to an action of resumption made by Haryana State Industrial Development Coporation Ltd. of Plot No.3 which had been originally allotted to the petitioner. The contention was that he had paid 9 out of 10 installments and for non- payment of 10th installment, the property was ordered to be resumed on 11.10.1983. The ground stated in the resumption order was that construction had not been started within the stipulated time. For the impugned action the writ petition had been filed only after representation was made on 30.6.1989. 2. In my view, the act that results in resumption of land cannot be CWP No.10544 of 1989 -2- a subject of writ petition after 6 years after the event and the mere submission of representation after 6 years cannot afford to the petitioner to contend that he had been vigilant about his rights. It is admitted by the counsel that even the original terms of allotment contained provisions for reference to an Arbitrator in case of any decision or act by a party that gives rise to a dispute and it provided that all disputes should be resolved by a process of arbitration. It appears that the petitioner had sought for reference to arbitration in the year 1984, but the respondent did not refer the matter to the Arbitrator. 3. This action, in my view, cannot provide to the petitioner an additional right, but it betrays the in-action on part of the petitioner to secure effective remedy which was available to him. If a party was bound to make a reference to an arbitration and if the respondent did not do so, the cause of action would have arisen on the day when the reference was sought and when it was not given. The Arbitration Act of 1940 provides for a party to approach a competent Court of jurisdiction under Section 8 and 20 for a direction to file the arbitral agreement and to make a reference. If this was also not attempted, a writ remedy in the year 1989 after representation cannot secure to the petitioner the relief of what according to him he was denied. The petitioner had an effective remedy which he did not avail of. 4. Even additionally, the relief for cancellation of resumption does not arise since the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that the property had been subsequently allotted to respondent No.2 and by virtue of agreement dated 11.4.1989, the property was granted to respondent No.2 and he has also paid the entire price of `9.09,258.75/- and has had the plot registered in his favour on 12.10.1989. Even at that time of filing of CWP No.10544 of 1989 -3- counter in the year 1989, it is stated that the factory premises had been erected at a cost of more than `20 lacs. 5. The challenge to the resumption cannot, therefore, now be undertaken at the instance of the petitioner. The writ petition itself is barred by latches and consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. March 9, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE