Summary
The Supreme Court upheld resumption of a concessional industrial plot after nearly twenty years without commencement of production or compliance with the construction condition. The prolonged unexplained default defeated the allotment’s industrial-development and employment purposes. The cited cases were factually distinguishable, and willingness to pay current market value did not entitle the appellants to restoration outside the governing disposal policy. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Issues
- Whether prolonged breach of the construction and production conditions justified resumption of the industrial plot.
- Whether sympathetic circumstances, other allotments or an offer of current market value required restoration.
Provisions considered
- Conditions 11 and 18, Industrial plot allotment letter dated 25 July 1984Construction was required within two years, subject to extension for reasons beyond the allottee’s control; breach permitted resumption in accordance with the governing Act. The unexplained prolonged default justified the action. (¶¶ 10, 15, 16, 22)
Held
- The concessional allotment served industrial growth and employment. Non-commencement of production for about twenty years, without sufficient explanation, defeated those purposes; sympathy could not excuse the prolonged breach. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16)
- The assertion that construction existed did not undermine the findings: no completion certificate was produced, the reply promised future construction and the authority reported that construction undertaken was belated and unauthorised. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Cases involving cured payment defaults, paid extension fees or the authority’s refusal to accept payment were distinguishable. Mistaken benefits to others would not establish an enforceable claim to equivalent treatment. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- An offer to pay current market value did not override the applicable estate-management disposal procedure. The appellants also failed to establish succession to the allottee partnership firm merely by being the managing director’s heirs. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- No serious infirmity or illegality warranted interference with the concurrent decisions upholding resumption. The appeal was dismissed without costs. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal dismissed; resumption of the industrial plot upheld. No costs.