Allahabad High Court
Ansal Housing Limited vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 October, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:165530-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34312 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ansal Housing Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agarwal Archi Piyush,Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Pratap Singh,C.S.C.,Swapnil Kumar Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Varad Nath, for the petitioner, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, for respondents no. 2 & 3 and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 4.
2. The petitioner was allotted a piece of land measuring 38.86 acres by respondent no.2. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in respect of the said allotment on 8.8.1996. Thereunder, the internal development was to be done by the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, it had completed the internal development and thereafter sold plots carved out over the land in question. The UPSIDC had executed lease deed in favour of some of the allottees.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that some part of the land allotted in its favour was acquired initially for construction of a public road and subsequently some additional area for construction of freight corridor.
5. The dispute relating to adjustment of the amount paid by the petitioner to the second respondent under the allotment and ancillary issues like FAR etc. were sought to be resolved through arbitration and in this regard the application of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending before this Court.
6. In the meantime, respondent no.2 has issued the impugned recovery certificate dated 28.8.2024 alleging that the petitioner had not fulfilled its obligation under the Memorandum of Understanding to carry out internal development. The order also states that the deficiency in internal development if carried out by respondent no.2 would entail an expense of around Rs.11.64/- crores and the said amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
7. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned recovery proceedings are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has not been served with any notice so far. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner for adjustment of the amount paid by it towards the initial allotment as a result of some part of the said land having been acquired is still to be adjudicated by the arbitrator and without adjusting the money paid by the petitioner towards the portion of land subsequently acquired, the impugned demand cannot be sustained.
8. It is further contended that under the Memorandum of Understanding, the second respondent was obliged to carry out the deficient work itself and the amount so spent could be recovered but not before carrying out the work.
9. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 & 3 submits that since the main objection of the petitioner is in relation to breach of principles of natural justice and therefore, the second respondent is ready to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the second respondent is also ready to carry out spot inspection of the entire site in the presence of the representative of the petitioner company, to which Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by providing that the impugned order would be treated to be a show cause notice to which the petitioner may reply within two weeks from today. Respondent no.2 as agreed to between the parties shall intimate a date to the petitioner on which it would get the site inspected through a senior officer in presence of the representative of the petitioner company.
11. The inspection report would be provided to the petitioner company within one week from the date of inspection and it shall be open to the petitioner company to file its objection, if any, against the said report and thereafter respondent no.2 would pass final order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within eight weeks from today.
12. Recovery of any amount shall abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no.2 in pursuance of the instant order.
Order Date :- 17.10.2024 piyush (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)