Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Vikram Spinners vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-3144-2021
Date of Decision:-25.2.2021
M/s Vikram Spinners
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of
COVID-19 Pandemic.
By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuance of writ of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 10.2.2020
(Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.1, order dated 9.8.2001 (Annexure
P-3) passed by respondent No.2 and resumption order dated 13.2.2001
(Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3.
1 of 6
(2) CWP-3144-2021
The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that he being
highest bidder was allotted plot No.2 measuring 509.38 square yards in
Industrial Area, Panipat vide allotment letter No.1555 dated 28.4.1988
(Annexure P-1). The petitioner deposited 10% of the total bid amount at
the time of auction and he deposited remaining 15% of the bid amount vide
cheque No.059220 dated 27.5.1988. The respondents failed to hand over
possession of the plot within stipulated period of 90 days from the date of
allotment. The respondents also failed to develop Industrial Area, Panipat
and no basic amenities were provided as had been promised by them at the
time of the auction. The petitioner was always ready and willing to deposit
the balance amount despite the fact that respondents never offered physical
possession of the plot to him. The aforesaid plot was illegally resumed by
the authorities vide order dated 13.2.2001 (Annexure P-2) without granting
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the
petitioner before the Appellate Authority was dismissed in a mechanical
manner vide order dated 9.8.2001 (Annexure P-3). On this, the petitioner
approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short
'Consumer Court'), which passed order dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) in
his favour. The appeal preferred by the State against the said order was
allowed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at
Panchkula (in short 'State Commission') vide order dated 20.4.2012
(Annexure P-5). Then the petitioner moved Civil Court but his suit was
dismissed on 8.7.2015 vide judgment (Annexure P-6). The appeal filed
against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.3.2019 vide
order (Annexure P-7). The petitioner also filed revision petition against the
2 of 6
(3) CWP-3144-2021
resumption order (Annexure P-2), but the same was dismissed vide order
dated 10.2.2020 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner has impugned orders
Annexure P-2, Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-8.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana who
was having advance copy of the petition appeared on behalf of the
respondents and assisted the Court.
The counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the matter
reiterated the facts of the case as detailed in the petition and which have
been briefly described hereinabove. The counsel for the petitioner has inter
alia challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the area was not
developed by the respondents and they failed to handover the possession of
the plot in question to the petitioner within stipulated period and no civic
amenities were provided by the respondents to the allottees of the plots in
the Industrial Area, Panipat.
The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
resumption order (Annexure P-2) was passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice and it was challenged before the Appellate Authority, however
the appeal was dismissed in a hasty manner without following the proper
procedure. On which, the petitioner lodged complaint in Consumer Court
and the same was allowed. However, the appeal filed by the respondents
was accepted with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Civil Court, but his suit was
dismissed. His appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail legal
remedy before the appropriate authority as per law. Then the petitioner filed
3 of 6
(4) CWP-3144-2021
revision petition but the same was also dismissed by respondent No.1
without assigning any reason.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that present petition is
not suffering from any delay. Earlier, the petitioner kept on litigating in the
Courts having no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The counsel for the
petitioner referred to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, with prayer for
exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Courts without jurisdiction.
The counsel for the petitioner in the end submitted that present
case is not the one where extreme step of resumption of plot ought to have
been resorted to by the respondents.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioner as well as State counsel.
The genesis of the issue starts with the passing of resumption
order dated 13.2.2001 (Anenxure P-2). The petitioner repeatedly
approached different Forums to challenge the resumption order. Firstly, he
filed statutory appeal, then he approached Consumer Court and then he filed
civil suit and then he again filed revision before the statutory authority, on
the basis of same cause of action. However, he remained unsuccessful in
getting any relief. Now, it is his fifth attempt to present the same cause of
action by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court and that too after lapse of
about 20 years.
Further, the resumption order (Annexure P-2) was passed as the
petitioner did not care to deposit the outstanding dues despite being asked to
do so, repeatedly. The statutory appeal filed against the resumption order
4 of 6
(5) CWP-3144-2021
was decided on merits by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9 th
August, 2001 (Annexure P-3). In 2007, the petitioner approached Consumer
Court and his complaint was accepted. However, the appeal filed by the
State was allowed by State Commission vide Annexure P-3 with liberty to
the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the Civil Court or
competent authority. Civil suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on
merits by the Civil Court. The Civil Court in its judgment (Annexure P-6)
clearly observed that there was nothing on file produced by the plaintiff
(petitioner herein) to show that during 10 years, he had tried to make the
payment of remaining installments. In Dalip Singh and Others vs. State of
Haryana and Others, 2018(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 925, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that 'the Court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of
land only if executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violation of
procedure'. However, the petitioner has failed to establish any such
violation or dereliction of duty on the part of authorities in the present case.
We have also gone through order (Annexure P-8) passed by the
Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning
Department, Chandigarh. The opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before passing the same and it is a speaking order. All the grounds
taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition, have been dealt in detail
in the said order. The counsel for the petitioner failed to bring to the notice
of this Court any legal infirmity in the order (Annexure P-8).
Furthermore, we are of the view that repetitive filing of
petitions by the petitioner before the different Forums with the same cause of
action, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
5 of 6
(6) CWP-3144-2021
For all the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit whatsoever
in the writ petition and it is dismissed as such.
25.2.2021 (RAJAN GUPTA) (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Gaurav Sorot JUDGE JUDGE
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
6 of 6
