Naveen Kumar Batra vs. State Of Haryana And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case was based on falsehood, with a conscious and calculated suppression of crucial facts and court orders. The successive petitions filed and withdrawn by the petitioner were found to be circumventive, artful, and insidious, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. The Court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. Vs. Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Ors. to emphasize the need to penalize such behavior and prevent the exploitation of the judicial system. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The Court also noted that despite observations regarding the misconduct of officials and directions for an inquiry, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the respondent authorities over 13 years later, but chose not to delve further into this aspect. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Naveen Kumar Batra, was allotted an industrial plot in Panipat in 2001. He remitted the earnest money and was required to deposit further sums and commence construction within a year of possession. Physical possession was delivered in September 2005, and building plans were approved in December 2005. However, the plot was resumed on December 29, 2005, for alleged failure to construct and start production. The petitioner claims he was not served with the resumption order and commenced construction after plan approval. An appeal against the resumption was allowed in January 2008, setting aside the resumption order, but the Revisional Authority overturned this in April 2011. The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the revisional order, which were withdrawn with liberty to file afresh or pursue departmental remedies. After a series of dismissals of appeals and review applications, the respondent-Corporation issued a communication in April 2024 requiring the petitioner to hand over vacant possession, leading to the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the resumption order dated 29.12.2005 was validly passed against the petitioner, considering the alleged lack of service of notice and hearing, and the subsequent approval of building plans and commencement of construction? 2. Whether the Revisional Authority's order dated 27.04.2011, setting aside the Appellate Authority's order, was justified, particularly in light of the findings regarding the misconduct of officials and the petitioner's actions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the resumption order was passed without proper notice or hearing and that he was unaware of it, leading him to proceed with construction. He argued that the Appellate Authority correctly set aside the resumption order. He also highlighted that the Revisional Authority's order was passed without communication and that subsequent departmental appeals and review applications were dismissed without proper consideration. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and Haryana Urban Development Authority (HSVP), argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the allotment letter regarding construction and production within the stipulated time. They supported the Revisional Authority's decision to set aside the Appellate Authority's order, implying that the petitioner's actions were not in accordance with the allotment terms.