LPA No.2091 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 2091 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 16.11.2011 HUDA and another . Appellants Versus M/s Swadeshi Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate for the appellants 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. This is second round of litigation. In the first round, one or the other party has earlier filed various writ petitions which were disposed of by a detailed order dated 11.12.2008. The order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11839 of 2007 (M/s Jagdamba Processors and others v. State of Haryana and others) on 11.12.2008 is absolutely clear and the directions are discernible from the perusal of paras 12,13 and 14 of the judgement which reads thus: “ 12. The ultimate object of establishing the ‘Dyeing Zone’ is to shift the polluting dyeing and printing units from the residential and nonconforming zone of Panipat Town to the newly carved out Dyeing Zone in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat so as to bring clean environment and to obviate the possibility of contamination of ground water. If that be so, then to accept that the petitioners would not require to be rehabilitated on the earmarked land purposely developed for them would not be LPA No.2091 of 2011 2 acceptable. We are of the view that the petitioners whose names figure in the survey list would be fully entitled to apply for plot of requisite size in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007, which has invited applications for allotment of such plots in the ‘Dyeing Zone’. The benefit of survey list made by the Survey Team, who have identified 494 dyeing and printing units and has made recommendation in respect of others regarding size of plots, has to be given to such persons. Therefore, we deem it just and appropriate to issue directions to the Chief Administrator, HUDA to reconsider the matter by accepting the eligibility of the petitioners, whose names are there in the survey list, for allotment of a plot and take a policy decision in that regard. The Chief Administrator shall also decide in principle the size of the plots which should be allotted to such persons and as to whether they would be considered in pursuance to the advertisement/public notice dated 11.7.2007 or their applications could be considered independent of that. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. It is not possible to accept the claims of the petitioners who never surfaced in the survey list of 494 units, which was prepared in 2001, because they were not in existence on or before the survey. There is no clinching evidence on record in any of these cases proving their existence beyond doubt on or before the date of survey. In any case, we do not wish to enter LPA No.2091 of 2011 3 upon any such inquiry as it may lead to including the names of those whose authenticity is doubtful. Therefore, we reject their claim and dismiss their petitions. 14. The petitions in respect of the petitioners who have already been allotted plots in the ‘Dyeing Zone’ are, however, dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.” 2. It is thus evident that names of the writ petitioner- respondents have figured in the survey list and then they were held fully entitled for allotment of plot of requisite size in pursuance of advertisement/ public notice dated 11.7.2007. It was by the aforesaid public notice that applications were invited for allotment of plots in the Dyeing Zone. It was also clarified that benefit of survey list made by the Survey Team which identified 494 dyeing and printing units had made recommendation in respect of others has to be given to such persons by keeping in view the principle of equality. It was in the aforesaid background that the Chief Administrator, HUDA was directed to reconsider the matter by accepting the eligibility of the petitioner- respondents as their names had figured in the survey list for allotment. The Chief Administrator, HUDA was to decide about the size of the plot which could be allotted to such persons and as to whether they would be considered in pursuance of public notice dated 11.7.2007 or their applications were to be considered independent of that advertisement. The required decision was to be taken within a period of three months. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court on 11.12.2008 an order has been passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA on 3.6.2009 (P.9). It has been held that the writ petitioner- LPA No.2091 of 2011 4 respondents were entitled to allotment of industrial plots as they were being uprooted from their present premises of dyeing units. However, the rates which were demanded from them were of the year 2009-10. A perusal of allotment letter dated 3.8.2009 would show that plot measuring 547.75 square meter is at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per square meter whereas a bigger size plot of 1147.50 sq. meters has been allotted @ Rs. 3000/- per square meter. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner- respondents have submitted applications in pursuance of the public notice issued on 11.7.2007 and their applications were not entertained. It was on the rejection of their applications that they approached this Court in the first round of litigation. The Division Bench of this Court had recognised their entitlement to the allotment of plots and therefore they cannot be put to any prejudice in the matter concerning realization of price because otherwise the relief granted to them in the earlier round of litigation would be rendered illusory . The view of the learned Single in the light of directions issued by the Division Bench is discernible from the following observations” '............. Thus, it is a situation where a person first is denied his rightful claim and thereafter, is penalized for the delay by asking him to pay the price which is prevailing. This approach would not be fair. It is respondent HUDA which did not consider their cases properly and now wants to get premium over their wrongs. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of the illegal action of HUDA and asked to pay the extra price due to the delay in allotment. The petitioner then would suffer double disadvantage. Firstly, they could not get LPA No.2091 of 2011 5 plots in time and secondly they would be asked to pay more without any fault on their parts. Even otherwise, once their right is recognized and their names were found in the survey list prepared at that time, HUDA was not justified in rejecting their claims” 4. We have heard learned counsel for HUDA at a considerable length. The argument raised by the learned counsel is that infact the writ petitioner- respondents did not apply in pursuance of public notice dated 11.7.2007. The aforesaid argument would not be available because it conceded position before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner- respondents had infact submitted applications in pursuance to the public notice dated 11.7.2007. The learned Single Judge has specifically so observed in the discussion part of the judgement, after para referring to the prayer of the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgement passed by the Division Bench. There is no acceptable ground put forward by the counsel for the appellant which may warrant admission of the appeal. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 16.11.2011 Judge okg