Petitioner challenged cancellation of land allotment for temporary manufacturing structures. Court held failure to set up facility violated allotment terms. Dismissed petition.
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. - 7223 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sandeep 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 Sri Ashish Kumar Singh for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and have perused the record.
The petitioner was allotted 418.6 Square meter of land for setting up Tinshed/temporary structure for installing a new manufacturing facility. The allotment order (Annexure 4, at page 31) specifically stated that the terms and conditions of allotment were to be fulfilled within specified period and on failure to do so allotment would be deemed cancelled.
However, pursuant to the letter of allotment, a lease for a period of 10 years was executed in favour of the petitioner by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Ghaziabad. The terms and conditions of the lease specifically provided that no permanent structure shall be erected over the demised premises though temporary structures such as Tinshed/Asbestos shed would have to be erected for new manufacturing/production.
By alleging that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement inasmuch as no new facility was set up there, which was clear from the report submitted by an inspection team, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 10.02.2020 calling for explanation as to why allotment be not cancelled.
In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply on 18.02.2020 stating that immediately after taking the plot on lease when the petitioner started to raise construction, he was stopped by the department on the ground that no permanent construction could be raised as the land was earmarked for road widening in future. Thus, the petitioner had no option but to use the plot allotted for purposes connected with an Ice factory of the petitioner already running and established on some other plot.
This explanation was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 13.01.2021, the respondent no.4 cancelled the allotment.
Aggrieved with the cancellation of allotment, this petition has been filed by stating that since the petitioner was stopped from raising construction by the department itself, the action of the department in cancelling the allotment on the ground of not commencing any new business at the plot allotted, is arbitrary and the department seeks advantage of its own wrong.
The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the allotment specifically provided that no permanent construction could be raised though new manufacturing facility could be set up in temporary structure such as
Tinshed/Asbestos shade. He submits that as, admittedly, no new facility in the demised premises was set up, as is clear from the report as well as the impugned order that neither electricity connection nor any new machine was installed, the terms and conditions of the allotment, which required setting up of facility within one month, have been violated and therefore, cancellation of the order of allotment is justified and calls for no interference.
We have gone through the record and have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.
We find from the record that the allotment letter as well as lease agreement had specifically provided that the plot allotted was for manufacturing of new products in temporary structures like Tinshed/Asbestos shed. Whereas, from the record it appears that the petitioner had failed to set up any manufacturing base for manufacturing new products, within the period specified. Thus, the action of the respondents is as per the terms of the allotment and cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 22.7.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of land allotment due to failure to set up manufacturing facility violates principles of fairness.
Sandeep Jain
State Of U.P.
Manoj Misra
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
