The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the termination of a land allotment. The court held that no clear-cut explanation existed for non-fulfilment of conditions, thus refusing interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7214 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ravindra Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 6; and have perused the record.
The petitioner was allotted a piece of land. Under the terms and conditions of the allotment, as made out from Annexure No.7 to the petition, within six months of the allotment, the allottee was required to establish 'Tinshed' and commence production.
In paragraph 8 of the agreement, at page 41 of the petition, it is stated that the allotment would come into effect only if its conditions are fulfilled within the time provided therein. It is also stated in paragraph 8 that if the terms and conditions are not fulfilled, it shall be open to the General Manager, District Industries and Enterprises Promotion Centre, Ghaziabad to terminate the allotment.
In pursuance of the terms and conditions of the allotment, by the impugned order dated 13.01.2021, the Joint Commissioner, District Industries and Enterprises Promotion Center, Ghaziabad terminated the allotment/lease after recording a finding that, within the specified period, the allottee neither established a manufacturing set up nor obtained a GST number. Even electricity connection and NOC from the Pollution Control Board were not obtained.
Challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 13.1.2021 (supra), this petition has been filed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned does not accord consideration to the reply submitted by the petitioner in which he had explained as to why production could not be commenced. By inviting our attention to page 47 of the paper book, which is a notice issued by the General Manager, District Industries and Enterprises Promotion Center, Ghaziabad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of interference by the respondents the conditions of allotment could not be fulfilled.
The notice at page 47 of the paper book does not reflect that there was interference by the District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad rather the notice apprises the petitioner of non-fulfillment of the conditions of allotment and its consequences.
The next argument of the petitioner is that in similar matters this court had interfered on the ground that proper reasons were not recorded while dealing with the explanation of the allottee.
The explanation of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure 14. From paragraph 14 of the explanation, at page 67 of the paper book, it appears that the petitioner did not find the plot allotment conditions convenient for setting up a manufacturing base and, therefore, had a production base at some other rented site. There is no clear cut explanation in respect of fulfillment of the terms and conditions of allotment.
In view of the above, as we do not find a good explanation with regard to non-fulfillment of the conditions of allotment, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the orders passed on some other petition.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.7.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the termination of land allotment for non-fulfillment of conditions could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Ravindra Jain
State Of U.P.
5 Others
Manoj Misra
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
