Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Precision Engineering Industries vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 30 November, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.8 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 26751/2014
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11/04/2014
IN LPA NO. 465/2012 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH)
M/S PRECISION ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 30/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv.
Mr. Alok Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2015.12.02
13:24:19 IST
Reason:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.13945 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26751/2014] M/S PRECISION ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 11th April, 2014 by which allotment of a plot of land made to the appellant way back in the year 1980 has been maintained but at the current market rate of the land.
3. The appellant who was allotted the land in the year 1980 at the rate of Rs.22 per square yard for setting up an industry 2 received a notice sometime in the year 1990 asking it to complete the construction on or before 31st March, 1991 or face the prospect of cancellation of the allotment. The appellant challenged the said notice before the High Court and an interim order was passed. It appears from the record that in the year 2004 the appellant submitted a letter/representation to the respondent authority stating that it would like to withdraw the writ petition if permission for construction is to be granted to it. No reply to the said letter was sent by the respondents as it would appear from the subsequent response(s) of the respondents to the specific RTI queries made by the appellant in this regard. Be that as it may nothing concrete emerged from the said negotiation and eventually the Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the writ petition was decided by the 3 impugned order dated 11th April, 2014 permitting the appellant to raise construction within the time specified provided it is willing to make payment for the land at the current market rate. Aggrieved this appeal has been filed.
4. Limited notice was issued by this Court as to why the order of the High Court should not be modified and the price of the land should not be pegged to the rate prevailing in the year 2004 i.e. when the letter containing the “offer” of the appellant, as noticed above, was issued We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have considered the facts and circumstances in their entirety.
5. Though there was no legal bar for the appellant to undertake construction the appellant was reluctant to proceed with the matter during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence the “offer” contained in 4 the letter of the appellant dated 6th October, 2004. The said offer of the appellant as noticed was not appropriately dealt with by the respondent. The appellant was in no way responsible for the long pendency of the writ petition and it was beyond its power and control to have the writ petition decided earlier than the date when it was so done by the High Court. If the letter of the appellant had been responded to at the appropriate time i.e. in the year 2004 in a positive manner, the appellant could also have been made to pay the rate prevailing then. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the order of the High Court is appropriately modified and the appellant is directed to pay, if it is so inclined, at the rate prevailing in the year 2004 and thereafter complete the construction within 5 a period of six months. It is also made clear that if the appellant takes the allotment in terms of the present order it will have no right to transfer or alienate the land and the same will be used only for the purpose of allotment, namely, for the purpose of setting up an industry.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 30, 2015