Estate Officer Ut Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. M/S. Esys Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd, on 11th May 2016, Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgement

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

When allottee violates Allotment Rules, and suppressed the material facts, then authority can cancel allotment

Civil Appeal No. 3765 of 2016
Bench: Justice V. Gopala Gowda; Justice Arun Mishra

Case Brief: In the present case, the appeal is directed against the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where the orders of the Estate Officer, Appellate and Revisional Authorities and resumed the plot which was allotted to the respondent. In the facts of the case, the Chandigarh Administration, in the year 2002 notified the rules- the Allotment of Small Campus Site Chandigarh Information Services Park, Rules, 2002 and the Rule 9 thereof required the transfer of the campus site by the allottee should not be permitted for a ten years’ period from the date of allotment or till all dues are fully paid up, whichever is later. The respondents were allotted with the Six acres of land, moreover, the condition in this connection was that the within the period of 3 years’ construction is required to be done. The respondents had allegedly transferred major portion of the shares to other company without informing the appellant or seeking necessary permission. After seeking clarification, the Estate officer decided to cancel the allotment. Respondents’ appeal was dismissed by appellate authority, further, revision claim also dismissed.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

However, writ petition was allowed by the High Court. Now this bench observed that the respondent apparently suppressed the facts, in spite of the clear direction made by apex court, in connection with the said deal with other company. As such, this bench found that there is concealment of the material facts by the respondent, even though it was directed to disclose the full facts in the counter affidavit by specific order. Also, it was seen that there was a sale of assets and subsidiaries and also there was denial that there is no sale, thus it is incorrect. As such, the bench observed that the provisions contained under Rule 9 of Rules and Clause 15 of allotment letter have been violated, clearly. Thus, the decision of High Court was seen in fault and also the decision of resumption of the allotted land by the appellant was legal and proper. Thus, appeal was decided in favour of appellant.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Read the Judgement:  Estate Officer Ut Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. M/S. Esys Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd

Leave a Reply