Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. On the other hand, Mr.S.Yashwanth, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second and third respondents would contend that no doubt, the allotment was made to and in favour of the petitioner in respect of industrial plot No.126 at Ambattur Industrial Estate for small scale industries by the order of the second respondent dated 05.4.1994. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner in response to the allotment order had paid the entire plot cost including service charge. Thereafter also, the request of submission of six copies of building plan, SSI Certificate etc., as sought for from the petitioner had been complied with. However, subsequently, it was pointed out to the second respondent Board that some of the plots in the industrial estate had been mistakenly allotted to the individual allottees and those plots are actually coming within the common area the Board must allot them for that industrial estate. Since these plots are coming under the public area reserved for public purpose, wrong allotment made to those allottees have been reconsidered and therefore, before taking any decision for cancellation of allotment, show cause notice were issued not only to the petitioner but also to some other persons in whose name, the plots were allotted which falls under the public purpose / reserved areas. Instead of giving reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and obtained the order of status quo.
15. Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that now the plot allotted to the petitioner i.e., plot No.126 and the plots nearby to the petitioner's plot namely, plot Nos. 124 and 125 do not form part of the common area in the name of oxidation pond. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plots which were allotted to others namely, plot Nos. 124 and 125 had already been allotted to the industrialists and they are running their industries.
16. The plan shown by the respondents also clearly shows that the petitioner's Plot No.126 is not part and parcel of any area ear marked for the purpose of oxidation pond or any other public purpose. When that being the position, the only objection or reason cited by the respondents in the impugned order to state that the allotted land to the petitioner comes under the common purpose or for the purpose of reserved area which is required by the SIDCO for the purpose it has been reserved, has no basis. The further reason cited in the impugned order that the allotment was in violation of the master plan and the same has not been approved by the competent authority since the same falls on the area for specific purpose, is also either misleading statement or without any basis. Further, in the said letter dated 05.6.2007 written by the second respondent to the Under Secretary to Government, Small Industries Department, it has also been mentioned as follows: