Dismissed

Manoj Gupta v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2011CWP/20815/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged resumption of industrial plot due to non-construction. Court, upon respondent undertakings regarding readjustment terms and availability of alternative land for subsequent allottee, disposed of the writ petition and ordered industry to re-allot the plot.

What did the court decide?

Plot in question be re-allotted to the petitioner on agreed terms and conditions.

Manoj Gupta Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

C.W.P. No. 20815 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 20815 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision:- 25.11.2011

Manoj Gupta

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4.

¶15

Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate for Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

¶16

¶17

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral).

¶18

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Assistant General Manager, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, whereby the plot in question which was allotted to the petitioner was ordered to be resumed as well as the order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P- 15), passed by the Appellate Committee, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

¶19

The resumption order was passed on account of nonconstruction of the building within the prescribed time.

¶20

During the course of hearing of this petition, the petitioner

¶21

¶22

C.W.P. No. 20815 of 2008

¶23

through his counsel made a statement that the petitioner is ready for reallotment of the plot in question which is in his possession at the current market price.

¶24

On September 6, 2011, the following order was passed, and the respondent's counsel was asked to have instructions from the department:

¶25

“Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 states that the industrial plot in question, which at one point of time was allotted to respondent No. 5 on 28.4.2008, after its resumption, has become vacant, as the said respondent has been allotted an alternative plot and as per the earlier order, the process to allot the said plot to the petitioner on current market price is going on, and such process is likely to be completed within one month.

¶26

Adjourned to November 25, 2011.”

¶27

Today counsel for respondents states that the department is ready to re-allot the plot in question to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions.

¶28

Plot will be allotted at current market price of Rs. 6500/- per sq. mtr.

¶29

Remaining construction will be completed within six months from the letter of reallotment.

¶30

The plot will be utilised for the same purpose for which it was allotted i.e., Engineering Goods (Steel & Bolt).

¶31

The plot shall not be sold for 10 years.

¶32

Principal amount excluding interest shall be adjusted.

¶33

Allotment letter will be issued in 4 weeks.

¶34

This statement has been made by the counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 on the basis of written instructions received by him from the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner is ready to get the plot re-allotted

¶36

C.W.P. No. 20815 of 2008

¶37

¶38

in his name on the aforesaid conditions.

¶39

It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that subsequent allottee of the plot (respondent No.5) has already been allotted an alternative plot.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has no objection if the plot in question is re-allotted to the petitioner on the aforesaid terms and conditions.

¶41

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid understanding arrived between the parties, and the plot in question be re-allotted to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid conditions.

¶42

Disposed of.

¶43

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶44

25.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE

Manoj Gupta v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Gupta v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmender Kumar Vs HUDA etc.

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sujan Singh and Ors./ Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayat Pb. and Ors.

R.B. Yadav Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harkanwaldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.