# M/s East India Packaging Pvt. Ltd v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 904
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2760 of 2006
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-east-india-packaging-pvt-ltd-v-u-p-state-industrial-development-corp-ltd-anr-50043
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Chandan Sharma,
Sri Deepak Kr. Jaiswal, Sri Dilip Srivastava,
Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, S.C., Sri
S.P. Singh, Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Rahul
Agarwal

A. Civil Law - Allotment of industrial area
- Cancellation on the ground of failure in
deposit of reservation amount - Legality
challenged - No notice and opportunity of
hearing was given - Effect - Clause of
automatic cancellation, how far relevant -
Held, even if there is stipulation in
allotment letter for automatic cancellation
of allotment in case of non deposit of
reservation amount, even then, notice was
required before cancelling the allotment
of petitioner to provide him opportunity of
hearing, as non grant of opportunity of
4 All. M/s East India Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. &
 Anr.
905
hearing has seriously prejudiced his right
- Supreme Court's decision of MD, HSIDC
relied upon. (Para 8 and 11)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Chandra Public School Vs. State
of U.P. and 3 others (Writ C No.14880 of
2015, decided on 02.08.2019) wherein the
impugned order was quashed on the ground
of non consideration of material placed
before
the
Authority.
The
relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"As I have already discussed
hereinabove, in my considered opinion, the
principal order passed by the Tehsildar
under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act,
1950 cannot pass the test of Article 14 of
the Constitution whereunder whatever is
arbitrary is bad and in matters where
element of adjudication is involved, it
clearly requires not only due application of
mind to the objections filed by the person
aggrieved but also proper adjudication of
issues, the evaluation of the pleadings
raised and appreciation of material placed
before the Authority. Fair play requires
recording precise and cogent reasons when
an order affects right of a citizen [Punjab
State Electricity Board and others v. Jit
Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118]. All this is quite
wanting in the order impugned and,
therefore, the order dated 13th June, 2012
deserves to be set aside. "

11. In view of the aforesaid
discussions and arguments raised by
learned counsel for parties, the orders dated
29.07.2017 and 10.02.2021 passed by the
respondent nos.3 and 2 respectively are
hereby quashed. The matter is remanded
back to the respondent no.3 for deciding
afresh by way of giving proper findings
while adjudicating the same with regard to
Plot No.117 which has been reported by the
concerned Revenue Inspector as different
numbers as 117d, 117[k, 117x, 177/k,
117M. A fine consideration to the earlier
proceedings which have been initiated
during the proceedings of consolidation,
may also be given consideration at the time
of final adjudication of the proceedings
initiated in Case No.227 of 2015.

12. In view thereof, the petition stands
allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 904
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 2760 of 2006

M/s East India Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Industrial Development Corp.
Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.H. Khan, Sri Sri W.H. Khan (Sn. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Chandan Sharma,
Sri Deepak Kr. Jaiswal, Sri Dilip Srivastava,
Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, S.C., Sri
S.P. Singh, Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Rahul
Agarwal

A. Civil Law - Allotment of industrial area
- Cancellation on the ground of failure in
deposit of reservation amount - Legality
challenged - No notice and opportunity of
hearing was given - Effect - Clause of
automatic cancellation, how far relevant -
Held, even if there is stipulation in
allotment letter for automatic cancellation
of allotment in case of non deposit of
reservation amount, even then, notice was
required before cancelling the allotment
of petitioner to provide him opportunity of
hearing, as non grant of opportunity of
4 All. M/s East India Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. &
 Anr.
905
hearing has seriously prejudiced his right
- Supreme Court's decision of MD, HSIDC
relied upon. (Para 8 and 11)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. M D, HSIDC Vs Hari Om Enterprises; 2009
(16) SCC 208
2. ITC Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & Ors.; 2012 AIR SCW
2421

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramanuj
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Rahul
Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent
no.4.

2. Present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 01.12.2005
passed by respondent no.2 by which
allotment of industrial plot in favour of the
petitioner was cancelled on the ground that
petitioner has failed to deposit reservation
money of Rs.74,160/- within the time
stipulated as per the allotment letter dated
08.02.2005.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that before passing the impugned
order, no opportunity of hearing was given to
him by issuing any notice. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the following judgements in the
cases of M D, HSIDC Vs Hari Om
Enterprises reported in 2009 (16) SCC 208
and ITC Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2421.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that in
the allotment order dated 08.02.2005, it
was clearly mentioned that in case the
allottee fails to deposit the reservation
money within the stipulated time then his
allotment will automatically cancelled and
whole amount of money deposited by him
stands forfeited. Therefore, there was no
requirement to issue notice to petitioner to
provide further opportunity.

5. Learned counsel for respondent
no.4 submits that after the cancellation of
allotment of the petitioner, the subsequent
allottee executed agreement to sell in his
favour with the permission of respondent
no.2 and he also deposited the entire
amount but during pendency of present
petition allotment of subsequent allottee
was cancelled. Therefore, petition deserves
to be dismissed.

6. Considering the above submission
as well as pleadings and from perusal of
record, we find that no notice was given to
the petitioner before passing impugned
order. This fact was not disputed by
respondent no.1.

7.

Sole
question
arises
for
consideration is whether respondent no.2
should have issued notice to petitioner
before cancellation of his allotment despite
the condition in allotment letter dated
08.02.2005 that, in case of non deposit of
reservation amount, his allotment will
automatically cancelled.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph nos.33, 34 and 36 of M D,
HSIDC Vs Hari Om Enterprises (supra)
are quoted hereinunder :
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"33. The question as to whether
the allottee had failed to comply with the
terms and conditions was required to be
determined. The terms of the contract
would have to be construed having regard
to the respective rights and obligations of
the parties to perform their part of
contract. It provides for issuance of a show
cause notice. It provides for refund of the
principal amount, of course, without any
interest.

34. Resumption of plot, it is trite,
would not be automatic.

36. The jurisdiction of a `State' to
resort to the drastic power of resumption
and
forfeiture
ordinarily
should
be
undertaken as a last resort. Keeping in
view the fact that the Corporation was
obligated to comply with the principles of
natural justice and, particularly, in view of
the fact that was required to determine the
capacity
as
also
bona
fide
of
an
entrepreneur
to
start
an
industrial
undertaking on the plots, the Corporation
was required to assign some reasons as to
why the plot in question had to be resumed.
While doing so, it evidently was required to
take into consideration its own conduct. A
party cannot take advantage of its own
wrong. While a State takes penal action
against the allottee, its bona fide would be
one of the relevant factors before an order
of resumption and forfeiture of the amount
deposited is passed."

9. Relevant part of paragraph no.16 in
ITC Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra)
is quoted hereinunder:

"16............................
Even
otherwise, when valuable rights had vested in
the appellants, by reason of the allotments
and grant of leases, such rights could not be
interfered with or adversely affected, without
a hearing to the affected parties........."

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly
observed in above cases that clause of
automatic cancellation of allotment in
allotment letter will not give right to the
authority to deprive the allottee from
opportunity of hearing by not issuing any
notice before passing the cancellation order
and cancellation of allotment should be the
last recourse.

11. Therefore, even if there is
stipulation in allotment letter for automatic
cancellation of allotment in case of non
deposit of reservation amount, even then,
notice was required before cancelling the
allotment of petitioner to provide him
opportunity of hearing, as non grant of
opportunity
of
hearing
has
seriously
prejudiced his right.

12. In view of the above, the petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
01.12.2005 passed by respondent no.2 is
quashed and respondent no.2 is directed to
issue notice providing opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and then pass order.

13. In case, after hearing the petitioner,
respondent no.2 decides to restore the
allotment in favour of the petitioner, then
petitioner will be permitted to deposit the
entire cost of plot along with interest
stipulated in the allotment letter dated
08.02.2005 itself, within a period of three
months, from the date of the order passed by
respondent no.2. Any amount already
deposited by petitioner will be adjusted in the
cost of plot in question.

14. It would also be appropriate to
direct that the amount deposited by
subsequent allottee will also be refunded by
4 All. Bhura Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907
respondent no.2 along with interest of 6.5%
per annum.

15. With the aforesaid direction, the
present writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 7024 of 2023

Bhura ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arun Kumar Pandey

A. UP Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67 &
67A
-
Illegal
encroachment
-
Determination - Defence of Section 67-A,
how far relevant - Held, when the defence
of Section 67-A of the Code is taken in
proceedings of Section 67 of the Code, the
same
issues
will
be
directly
and
substantially
in
issue
in
both
the
proceedings - Failure of the learned
courts below to enquire into the validity of
the defence of the petitioner u/s 67-A of
the Code has resulted in a miscarriage of
justice. (Para 14 and 17)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
Chairman LIC of India & ors. Vs A. Masilamani;
2013 (32) LCD 30: (2013) 6 SCC 530

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The impugned order dated
25.8.2022 passed by the respondent No.3Tehsildar(Judicial),
Tehsil-Amroha,
District-Amroha, rendered in proceedings
registered as Computerized Case No.
T202113380101336 under Section 67 of
the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), finds
that the petitioner had illegally encroached
over the disputed parcels of land, and
accordingly it was directed that the
petitioner be evicted from the disputed
parcel of land. Damages and other charges
were also imposed upon the petitioner.

3.

The
learned
appellate
court/Collector, Amroha, by the impugned
order dated 19.11.2022 agreed with the
findings of the learned trial court-Tehsildar
(Judicial),
Tehsil-Amroha,
DistrictAmroha, and affirmed its order dated
25.08.2022.

4. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the defence
of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 taken by the petitioner was not
adverted to by both the courts below.
Further without proper demarcation of the
lands, a finding of illegal encroachment
cannot be determined.

5. Due to inadvertence, Section 67-A
of the Code could not be referred to the
Court when the judgement was rendered on
29.07.2021, this necessitated the review
application.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent contends that protection
of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code,