Disposed

Bhavana Gupta v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Dev Corp Ltd. Hsiidc and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2017CWP/28351/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench set aside the petitioner's allotment of an industrial plot in a previous writ petition. The petitioner challenged her liability, claiming she had surrendered the plot during the pendency and demanded a balance refund. This court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to reply to a legal notice.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reply to the petitioner's legal notice. All contentions kept open.

Bhavana Gupta Vs Haryana State Industrial and… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 28351 of 2017 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 14. 12. 2017

Bhavana Gupt a

…. . Pet i t i oner

ver sus

Har yana St at e I ndust r i al & I nf r ast r uct ur e Devel opment Cor por at i on Lt d. and anot her . . . . . Respondent s

¶7

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE HARI NDER SI NGH SI DHU

¶8

Pr esent : Mr . Nar ender Pal Bhar dwaj , Advocat e f or t he pet i t i oner

¶9

S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CE ( Or al ) :

¶10

The pet i t i oner was al l ot t ed an i ndust r i al pl ot of l and al ong wi t h sever al ot her s. These al l ot ment s wer e chal l enged i n t he case of Mul ak Raj Dhami j a and ot her s vs. St at e of Har yana and ot her s , CWP No. 5075 of 2010 whi ch was di sposed of by an or der and j udgment dat ed 27. 11. 2015. The Di vi si on Bench set asi de al l t he al l ot ment s. I t i s i mpor t ant t o not e t hat t he pet i t i oner was r espondent No. 6 t o t hat wr i t pet i t i on. Ther e i s not hi ng t o i ndi cat e t hat t he pet i t i oner was not ser ved. That t he pet i t i oner may not have appear ed ei t her i n per son or t hr ough counsel i s not r el evant . The pet i t i oner woul d be bound by t he r esul t of t hat wr i t pet i t i on. Par agr aph 6 of t hat pet i t i on r eads as under : -

¶11

“ 6. Not onl y t hi s Cour t has f ound t hat t her e was no cr i t er i a f or al l ot ment , but even t he Commi t t ee has f ound, as r epr oduced above, t hat t he al l ot ment s wer e made wi t hout f r ami ng any cr i t er i a. Ther ef or e, we have no opt i on, but t o set asi de al l t he al l ot ment s made wi t h t he f ol l owi ng di r ect i ons:

¶12

Parkash Chand 2017.12.15 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CWP- 28351- 2017

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

( 1) The al l ot ment of pl ot s wher e t he const r uct i on has been par t l y or compl et el y compl et ed st and quashed wi t h a di r ect i on t o HSI I DC t o assess t he cost of const r uct i on as on 27. 03. 2015 and t o pay such cost of const r uct i on and t he al l ot ment pr i ce pai d al ong wi t h 10% i nt er est per annum on t he al l ot ment pr i ce f r om t he dat e of deposi t t i l l t he dat e of r eal i zat i on. The amount shal l be r ef unded or pai d t o t he al l ot t ees wi t hi n a per i od of t hr ee mont hs f r om t oday.

¶16

( 2) However , wher e t he pr oduct i on has been commenced, HSI I DC shal l t ake over t he possessi on of pl ant and machi ner y of 122 pl ot s by pr epar i ng a det ai l ed i nvent or y gi vi ng l i ber t y t o t he al l ot t ees t o r emove t he movabl e asset s and/ or t he st ock i n t r ade wi t hi n t wo mont hs. The HSI I DC wi l l t her eaf t er assess t he cost of const r uct i on; cost of pl ant and machi ner y i ndependent of t he bi l l s or t he i nvoi ces obt ai ned by t he ent r epr eneur s and put t he pr oper t y f or al l ot ment by r eser vi ng t he pr i ce so ar r i ved at or by publ i c e- auct i on wi t h such r eser ve pr i ce f or auct i on af t er gi vi ng wi de publ i ci t y. The val uat i on of 122 pl ot s shal l be compl et ed wi t hi n si x mont hs f r om t oday and put t o sal e wi t hi n next t wo mont hs. ”

¶17

The pet i t i oner cont ends t hat she i s not bound by t hat j udgment . The pet i t i oner st at es t hat she had sur r ender ed t he pl ot dur i ng t he pendency of t he wr i t pet i t i on, i . e. , bef or e t he j udgment .

¶18

A year and a hal f l at er , t he pet i t i oner , by her Advocat e’ s not i ce dat ed 30. 07. 2017 demanded a r ef und of about Rs. 35 l akhs t oget her wi t h i nt er est at 18% per annum. The pet i t i oner cont ends t hat t hat was t he bal ance payment due f r om t he r espondent s.

¶19

We ar e not i ncl i ned t o gr ant t he r el i ef s sought i n t he l egal not i ce dat ed 30. 07. 2017 especi al l y as pr i ma f aci e i t appear s t hat t he pet i t i oner ’ s case i s cover ed by t he af or esai d j udgment of

¶20

Parkash Chand 2017.12.15 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP- 28351- 2017

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

t he Di vi si on Bench of t hi s Cour t . The pet i t i oner has not st at ed whet her or not t he r espondent s had of f er ed t he amount as per t he sai d j udgment .

¶24

I n t he ci r cumst ances, t he onl y or der t hat we ar e i ncl i ned t o pass at t hi s st age i s t o di r ect t he r espondent s t o r epl y t o t he pet i t i oner ’ s l egal not i ce dat ed 30. 07. 2017 and i t i s

¶25

so or der ed. Al l t he cont ent i ons ar e kept open.

¶26

The pet i t i on i s accor di ngl y di sposed of .

¶27

( S. J. VAZI FDAR) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶28

( HARI NDER SI NGH SI DHU) JUDGE

¶29

1. 2017 par kash

¶30

Parkash Chand 2017.12.15 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhavana Gupta v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Dev Corp Ltd. Hsiidc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavana Gupta v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Dev Corp Ltd. Hsiidc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srs Real Estate Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajinder Paul Mittal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohan Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Madan Lal Saini Vs State of Punjab & Others

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration Estate Office and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.