CWP No.4961 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4961 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: April 18, 2011 M/S BANSAL INDUSTRIES, ROHTAK ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 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? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR MS. RUPINDER KAUR THIND, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate represents Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioner and seeks for time. The case is of the year 1990 and the subject matter of the writ petition is the issue of cancellation of allotment of Plot No.191 in Industrial Estate. The cancellation was sought to be done through the impugned proceedings of the respondent was the non-fulfillment of the condition of allotment. The order was passed on 12.2.1990 and by virtue of an interim order, status quo with reference to Plot No.191 had been ordered. Having obtained an interim order, the case stood on for consideration and it is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the plot still remains vacant. The plea for adjournment is not fair. I decline the prayer and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. CWP No.4961 of 1990 -2- 2. The point of dispute arose on account of the fact that in an earlier allotment of Plot No.18, there had been a fixed price of `20,000/- and when an alternative allotment had been made for Plot No.191, the cost had been worked out at `1,11,100/- on the basis of new policy/guidelines. When the petitioner had been called upon to make the payment within the stipulated period, the petitioner had challenged the competency of the authority who enhanced the rate of the plot in question. The dispute of payment of price for a plot and unwillingness of the petitioner to pay price has resulted in the plot remaining vacant in an industrial estate. 3. Industrial estates are earmarked portions for fostering industrial growth and it is imperative in such cases that allottees utilize the fruits of allotment by putting up industrial sheds and participate in the process of industrial growth. The setting up of industrial estate is invariably brought through a slew of concessions and it is most undesirable that any case should get locked up in litigation. It undermines the very purpose for which an industrial estate is brought into existence. It must be remembered that considerations for allotment of properties are made on several criteria that includes the feasibility of property, the willingness of parties to establish the plots immediately and so on. A party who was raising the issue of competency of a State to enhance the price would still be not willing to carry on with the case today and would only try to unearth a new ground for seeking adjournment. I decline the relief and I would, for the reasons outlined above, do not find that the case should require to be detained for consideration on an issue whether the price of the industrial plot could be increased. The petitioner by his conduct has disentitled himself to a favourable consideration for retention of the plot at the price of `20,000/- CWP No.4961 of 1990 -3- which was offered to be given for yet another Plot No.18. 4. The writ petition is dismissed and the respondents shall be at liberty to put up the property which had been held up in the litigation for appropriate use in accordance with law. April 18, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE