RSA No.1550 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1550 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.8.2010 HSIDC Ltd. ......Appellant(s) Versus Rajinder Gautam & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration to the effect that resumption order dated 20.12.1994 and ejectment order dated 24.7.1997 was illegal and not binding upon his rights, further restraining the appellant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property in any manner, subject to deposit of Rs.70350/- by the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 14% per annum plus penal interest, if any, within 15 days from the date of judgment, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit with the averments that the plot in question was allotted to one Sh. Amar Chand Gupta vide allotment letter No.3383 dated 9.8.1977, who had paid the entire dues. After issuance of letter of possession on 18.5.1985, electric and water connections were applied for and construction was also raised. About 40% of the construction was completed and a unit was in RSA No.1550 of 2009 2 production on the suit property. After the death of Amar Chand on 10.4.2000, the plaintiff became owner of the suit property by virtue of Will dated 20.5.1986. It is the further case of the plaintiff-respondent that on 5.9.2001, officials of the defendants came to the suit property and informed that the same was resumed and also threatened to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly. The defendants raised demand of Rs.70350/- towards extension fee which was unjust and illegal as 40% construction was already in existence and the unit was operational. The resumption order dated 20.12.1994 was stated to be arbitrary, unjust, and further the order dated 24.7.1997 of the Collector was stated to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary and against the natural justice as the property in question was not a public premises at the relevant time. The request made by the plaintiff to the defendants to withdraw the resumption order etc. proved futile, which necessitated to file the instant appeal. The appellant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the appellant submitted that the original allottee was to start construction of building within six months and complete the same within two years with a further rider to commence the unit within three years of the date of allotment. Extension was granted upto 30.6.1993 subject to payment of Rs.70350/- as extension fee vide letter No.5565 dated 16.3.1993 but he failed to comply with it which resulted into resumption of plot on 20.12.1994. It was further denied that 40% of construction was in existence on the plot. Denying rest of the averments and submitting that the orders dated 20.12.1994 and 24.7.1997 were illegally passed, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Replication was filed by the plaintiff controverting the stand taken the defendants in the written statement after reasserting the averments made in the plaint. RSA No.1550 of 2009 3 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether deceased Amar Chand Gupta executed Will dated 20.5.1996 in plaintiff's favour? OPP 2. Whether the resumption order dated 20.12.1994 passed by defendants is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs? OPD 3. If issue No.2 is proved, whether the ejectment order dated 24.7.1997 is illegal, null and void and plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property? OPD 4. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 7 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 10. Relief.” The trial Court decided issues No.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the appellants. Under issue No.5, suit was RSA No.1550 of 2009 4 held to be within limitation. Issues No.6 to 9 were decided as being not pressed by the defendants. Resultantly, the suit was decreed. Not satisfied from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009. Still not satisfied, the present appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. The Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal observed that in fact, the appellant-Corporation never enabled the allottee to comply with the condition of completing the construction and starting the unit as per Clause 7 of the agreement itself, as after the allotment of the plot on 9.8.1977, the appellant could deliver the possession only on 18.5.1985 on the request of the allottee and therefore, it was not possible for the allottee to raise construction and commence production within the stipulated period of two and three years respectively as per the conditions. The Lower Appellate Court also found that before demanding extension fee, no notice was served upon the plaintiff-respondent. A finding of fact was also recorded on the basis of report Ex.PW8/A that construction of the factory on the plot had started in the year 1986 and was completed in the year 1987 itself. The Courts below also found that before resorting to resumption proceedings, allottee was not sent any intimation or notice. Similarly, after securing the ejectment order dated 24.7.1997, no notice of the proposed ejectment was ever served upon him and despite the aforesaid order of resumption and ejectment against the plaintiff- respondent, no steps were taken by the appellant to get back physical RSA No.1550 of 2009 5 possession of the plot. After noticing the aforesaid fact, which are not disputed even before this Court, the Lower Appellate Court found that even after resumption, the appellant-Corporation was to allot the plot in dispute to someone else for industrial activities and since the appellant was ready to abide by the impugned decree of the trial Court by depositing extension fee of Rs.70350/- along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum plus interest within the stipulated period, it was in the interest of justice to allow it to do so. It may also be noticed at this stage that in Satbachan Singh Lochab v. The Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, 1989 PLJ 91 (P&H), this Court has held that ordinarily resumption of property should not be ordered. The ratio held in all other judicial pronouncements as cited at the bar on behalf of the respondent, more or less stipulate about adhering to principles of natural justice for not straightway resorting to resumption of property without affording an opportunity of hearing to the allottee. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, which could not be disputed before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to raise any worthwhile argument in support of this appeal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. August 17, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE