IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.05.2010 The Panipat Dyers Association Ugra Kheri Road, Panipat (Haryana) through its President Shri Yashpal Malik. ….Petitioner versus The State of Haryana through its Commissioner & Secretary Town & Country Planning Department Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kaadambari Puri, Advocate, and Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, and Mr. Deepak Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, and Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. G.C.Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J 1. The petitioner-association espouses the cause on behalf of its members whose allotment of industrial plots by the 2nd respondent- HUDA had been ordered to be resumed by order dated 13.02.2009. The resumption orders had been made on the ground that the allotment of the Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 - 2 - plots themselves have been made with the express purpose of setting up dyeing units by all the allottees and they were required under the terms of allotment that they shall construct upon the plots and relocate themselves within one year from the date when all the developmental works have been completed. The allotment letter provides that the respondent would give a clear period of one year for starting construction from the date of offer of possession which offer could be made only on completion of developmental works in the areas. The petitioners' complaint through this writ petition is that the basic development had not been done in the new sector and, therefore, the dyeing units could not start the construction over the plots and the offer of possession which had been made was itself illegal, for, they have not even made the necessary developmental works. According to the petitioners, they earlier approached this Court when there was an imminent threat of all the dyeing units of Panipat having to shift against the backdrop by a policy of the State Government to relocate them as a measure of pollution control. While the petitioners claim that they have no objection to being shifted, they have serious concern in the manner, the policy was being implemented which rather than benefiting the residents of Panipat to provide a clean environment when they had made adequate provisions like the Effluent Treatment Plant and basic amenities like sewerage, electricity, water etc. 2. In the earlier writ petitions i.e. in Civil Writ Petition No.17648 of 2002 and Civil Writ Petition No.8032 of 2007, the counsel appearing on behalf of the HUDA, had given assurances before the Court Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 - 3 - that the class of dyeing units could give representations to competent authority with regard to non-availability of basic amenities and the determination of appropriate price for the plots. He also assured a reasoned order would be passed after hearing all the concerned parties. They were assured that till representations were moved by the members, they would not be required to shift to the new places. The representations have been made in terms of the order passed by this Court earlier the speaking order as contemplated by this Court was made on 13.02.2009, stating that all the basic amenities barring a few, have already been provided and that they were bound to immediately shift. The order had been passed addressing each one of the complaints made by the petitioners relating to the alleged inadequacy of the developmental works and the alleged improper price mechanism that had been adopted. The Financial Commissioner had stated that huge amount of Rs.44.54 crores had been incurred for providing all the basic amenities to facilitate the shifting of the units and the deferrals sought by the members of the association was rejected as devoid of merits on all counts. Soon thereafter by memos issued in March 2008, all the members of the association had been served with notices to show cause as to why the orders of resumption shall not be passed for non-construction, misuse of property, unauthorized construction, obnoxious trade and non-payment of installments and other dues. All the persons, who had been served, appeared to have given details to the show cause notices and also filed the writ petition. 3. Having regard to the fact that the petition has been filed in a Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 - 4 - representative capacity by the association with no individual details of the status of construction, I had requested the respective counsel to give me details of the names of the members of the association and the construction details of each one of the members. In response, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has provided a list of 232 members out of whom 38 persons had already completed construction and 22 persons were still in the process of construction of the buildings. He has also submitted that the building plans had been approved for 19 of them and several building plans are still pending for clearance. The Estate Officer has also given status report on 22.03.2010 referring to the fact that the total plots carved out as per demarcation plan were 510 ,out of which 498 had already been allotted. The building plans for 181 against 321 have been submitted and construction activities are going on in 116 of them. Plans and occupancy certificates have been applied for 48 units and certificates have also been issued only for 3 of them. The learned counsel gives details also about the following information:- “1. Building plan under objection and informed to the allottees. -30 nos. 2. Building plan under scrutiny with XEN/DTP, Panipat.-44 nos. 3. Building plans cleared by DTP/XEN but not approved by the EO due to non-depositing the balance dues. -19 nos. 4. Building Plans held up due to expiry of prescribed construction period. But there is stay of the Hon'ble High Court in the CWP No.8497 of 2009 filed by Dyers Association, Panipat (next date 14.12.2009). - 47 nos.” 4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners refers to the averments in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of HUDA which, according to him, is an admission of the fact that the developmental works are still not complete at the time when the Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 - 5 - resumption notices were issued. In particular, the reply to the application filed by the petitioner in CM No.5438 of 2010 itself admitted that it had completed the installation of 132 KV Sub Station only on 25.12.2009 and also energized the same. As regards the raw water which was said to be essential to the tune of 16 cusecs, the Estate Officer had admitted in the reply that RCC pipeline connecting the canal to the units are not fully established on account of the fact that on a 100 meter stretch, there was a litigation still pending and that therefore, the Estate Officer had merely made provision for water through four bore-wells. The learned counsel states that the requirement of all the dyeing units for water is so important that all the units cannot secure water merely through four bore- wells. The canal water was absolutely essential and unless that was assured, it was not possible to shift. 5. Having regard to the fact that on the showing of HUDA that the additional load for electricity connection has been provided only recently in December, 2009, the resumption notices issued earlier, cannot be justified. The learned counsel refers me to the definition of “Amenity” and “Basic Amenity” as set out in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act which under the terms of allotment were required to be provided before an offer of possession is made. The definition of “Amenity” and “Basic Amenity” reads as under :- “(a) “amenity” includes roads, water supply, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, treatment and disposal of sewage, sullage and storm water, public works, tourist spots, open spaces, parks, landscaping and play fields, and such other conveniences as the State Government may, by notification, specify to be n amenity for the purposes of this Act; Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 - 6 - (ai) “basic amenities” include metalled roads, wholesome water, sewerage and electrification.” If we consider the fact that on the date when the resumption notices were sent, there had been no adequate provision for electricity and water, there was no scope for invoking the provision for resumption without providing those amenities or basic amenities, enjoined in the allotment letter. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, Shri D.V. Sharma states on instructions that he is prepared to withdraw all the notices if there is a definite time frame laid down for the petitioners to shift. He assures that water through the bore-wells can generate 16 cusecs of water. It is not possible to correctly predict as to how the problem of acquisition of a small stretch of land on about 100 meters length could be sorted out before the RCC pipes are laid to get the canal water to the places where the units are located. I am, however, convinced that all the developmental works are complete, except the issue relating to water where there are varying perceptions of the petitioners complaining that the provisions are not adequate while HUDA contends that there is very little yet to be done. The petitioners cannot indefinitely postpone their action to construct and all the members of the association, who have been allotted plots shall draw up plans, if they had not already done and submit them within one month from the date of order. The constructions shall be carried out in accordance with building regulations after submitting building plans and securing appropriate sanctions. The entire schedule of completion of constructions and shifting shall take place in the manner provided under the allotment letters. The petitioners shall have an outer limit of one year Civil Writ Petition No.8497 of 2009 - 7 - from today and HUDA shall obtain proof of certification through a competent authority that the provision for water made by them assures them of a supply of not less than 16 cusecs on the completion of 12 months and circulate them to all the dyeing units, who are required to shift. The copies of certification shall be circulated not later than 15 days from the completion of one year as aforesaid, to all the individual dyeing units and if the occupancy certificates and shifting are not done within 4 weeks on the expiry of 15 days of certification of proof of provision for water amenities, respondents shall be at liberty to take action for resumption in the manner provided by the rules. The impugned notices are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2010 sanjeev