JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions - No. 12890 of 1996, titled S.L. Chopra versus The State of Haryana & others and 12418 of 1994 titled Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. versus Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & others and C.O.C.P. No. 151 of 1996 titled M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. versus Shri Ashok Lavasa & anr. as in my opinion, all the three matters can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. For the purpose of facts, some have been taken from C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996 and assistance for incorporating the pleadings has also been taken by me partially from C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994. The pleadings of both the writ petitions can be described in the following manner :- 3. Shri S.L. Chopra through his attorney Shri Ashok Chopra filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12890 of 1996 against the State of Haryana and others and he has made a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and letter dated 4.4.1996 issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., vide which respondents No. 3 and 4 have been allotted Plot No. 109, situated in Udyog Vihar, Dundahera be quashed and direction be issued to respondent No. 2 not to allot Plot No. 109 or any other alternative plot except to the petitioner as he was allotted Plot No. 109 vide letter dated 4.12.1979 regarding which the possession was never given to the petitioner as Plot No. 109 was a cremation ground. A prayer has further been made that directions be given to respondent No. 2 to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner as has been done to various persons of the same dimension i.e. 4000 sq. mtrs. which was earlier allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 4.12.1979. 4. M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd in its writ petition has made a prayer that Plot No. 109 may be allotted to it or in the alternative directions be given to respondents No. 1 and 2 for allotment of an alternative plot as the respondent-authorities failed to deliver the physical possession of Plot No. 109 measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs. 4. M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd in its writ petition has made a prayer that Plot No. 109 may be allotted to it or in the alternative directions be given to respondents No. 1 and 2 for allotment of an alternative plot as the respondent-authorities failed to deliver the physical possession of Plot No. 109 measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs. It was also pleaded in the alternative by Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. that directions be given to respondents No. 1 and 2 to allot Plot No. 445, Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, measuring 4000 sq. mtrs. and they may also be directed for the delivery of the possession of this plot at the same rate on which Plot No. 109, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon was allotted. 5. It is the case set up by Mr. Chopra, petitioner of C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996, that he made an application to respondent No. 1 for the allotment of an industrial plot at Dundahera, District Gurgaon on 1.4.1979 and also submitted a draft for a sum of Rs. 5,808/- being 5% of the price of the plot. He wanted to set up an export oriented ready-made garments and leather made-ups industry as he is a Chemical Engineer by profession having a background of business management and has qualifications of B.Sc. Diploma in Technology, B. Tech, etc. Vide letter No. 25.4.1979 the petitioner was called for discussion before the Allotment Committee and on 18.6.1979 respondent No. 2 finally acceded to the request of the petitioner for allotment of one acre plot in industrial area at Dundahera, District Gurgaon at the tentative price of Rs. 28.70 per sq. mtr. Finally, a letter of allotment of Plot No. 109 was issued in favour of the petitioner on 4.12.1979 vide Annexure P-7. The petitioner also paid 50% of the tentative price of the plot and also wrote a letter dated 5.12.1979 regarding the delivery of possession of the plot in question. On the contrary, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioner to execute an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper so that the possession of the plot may be given to him. The agreement was executed between the parties. On the contrary, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioner to execute an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper so that the possession of the plot may be given to him. The agreement was executed between the parties. As per the agreement, the petitioner was to start the construction of the building within six months and complete the same within a period of two years from the date of allotment and the unit was to start within three years from the date of allotment. After signing the agreement, the petitioner wanted to take the possession of the site in question for setting up his industry and when he went to the site he was shocked to see that out of the plot No. 109 a cremation ground has been carved out and it is being used by the villagers, i.e. respondent No. 5. After observing that plot No. 109 was cut out as a cremation ground, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 to allot an alternative plot, but respondent No. 2 did not take any action. Resultantly, the petitioner had to make several representations to respondent No. 2 and one of the representations is Annexure P-10 in which the petitioner made a prayer even for the allotment of an alternative site. Instead of allotting an alternative site, respondent No. 2 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, wrote a letter dated 25.8.1981 stating therein that since the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the allotment did not start the construction of the unit within six months nor he completed the building within two years nor he started the production within three years from the date of allotment, therefore, the plot stands resumed. 6. The grouse of the petitioner is two-fold on the order of resumption. Firstly, he did not receive any letter or intimation or show cause notice from the respondent-Corporation before taking this action nor this plot can be resumed for the simple reason that respondent-Corporation never delivered the possession of the plot in question as it was a cremation ground. Therefore, the order of resumption dated 25.8.1981 is bad. Firstly, he did not receive any letter or intimation or show cause notice from the respondent-Corporation before taking this action nor this plot can be resumed for the simple reason that respondent-Corporation never delivered the possession of the plot in question as it was a cremation ground. Therefore, the order of resumption dated 25.8.1981 is bad. Rather, the petitioner was always eager to start the construction and to start the unit and he has been restrained from doing so on account of the fact that the plot was in fact a cremation ground and the petitioner being a religious minded person would not like to hurt the feelings of the persons who are using this plot as a cremation ground. On receipt of the order of resumption the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondent-Corporation regarding the allotment of an alternative site and it was also prayed that the plot could not be resumed on account of the aforesaid facts but to no effect. So much so, the petitioner made various representations to the higher authorities including the Chief Minister. On the contrary, the Corporation wrote a letter to the petitioner on 14.3.1986 that no plot is available in Udyog Vihar, therefore, the petitioner may apply for the refund of amount or he can be accommodated with an industrial plot at Ambala or Samalkha, two distant places from Dundahera. On receipt of letter dated 14.3.1986 the petitioner made various representations to respondents No. 1 and 2 to give him an alternative site near the place of original allotment and that the order of resumption is illegal when even the symbolic possession of Plot No. 109 was not given to him. The petitioner had been visiting the site of Plot No. 109 from time to time and was also making efforts for an alternative site. On going to the plot he came to know that this very plot has been allotted to respondents No. 3 and 4. The petitioner also came to know that under the orders of the High Court Plot No. 109 has been released by respondent No. 2. He was totally shocked by learning that how the Plot No. 109 could be allotted to anybody else when respondent No. 2 was not in a position to deliver the possession to the petitioner. The petitioner also came to know that under the orders of the High Court Plot No. 109 has been released by respondent No. 2. He was totally shocked by learning that how the Plot No. 109 could be allotted to anybody else when respondent No. 2 was not in a position to deliver the possession to the petitioner. It also came to the notice of the petitioner that vide letter dated 23.1.1981, respondents No. 3 and 4 were made an offer for allotment of Plot No. 109 before the order of resumption was passed against the petitioner. This has been done in a clandestine manner by respondents No. 3 and 4 in connivance with respondent No. 2. So much so it has already been decided by No. 2 that Plot No. 109 will be allotted to respondents No. 3 and 4 after resumption. Meaning thereby that respondent No. 2 was bent upon in resuming the plot for the benefit of respondents No. 3 and 4. On the one hand respondent No. 2 was negotiating with the petitioner for the grant of an alternative site and was stating that no industrial plot was available and on the other hand it allotted Plot No. 109 to respondents No. 3 and 4 on 5.10.1981 in pursuance of the request dated 23.1.1981 made by respondents No. 3 and 4. This exercise on the part of respondent No. 2 was a malicious act and it wanted to oblige respondents No. 3 and 4 who were one of the biggest industrial groups in the State of Haryana. Moreover, respondents No. 3 and 4 filed C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 i.e. second writ petition, which I am gong to dispose of through this judgment, and sought the directions to hand over the possession of Plot No. 109, phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Dundahera, measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs. to it or in the alternative to hand over the physical possession of Plot No. 445 measuring 4000 sq. mtrs. This writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 26.7.1995 wherein the Court quashed the order dated 27.7.1994 issued against respondents No. 3 and 4 for resumption of the plot by respondent No. 2 and directed that vacant possession of Plot No. 109 be handed over to the petitioner. mtrs. This writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 26.7.1995 wherein the Court quashed the order dated 27.7.1994 issued against respondents No. 3 and 4 for resumption of the plot by respondent No. 2 and directed that vacant possession of Plot No. 109 be handed over to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 failed to deliver the possession of Plot No. 109 even to M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4, who filed C.O.C.P. No. 151 of 1996. Respondents No. 3 and 4 could not get the possession because the Sarpanch and Panches of the villages were creating problem on account of the cremation ground. In the case of the petitioner the symbolic possession was never given to him but symbolic possession was given to respondents No. 3 and 4 of Plot No. 109 but physical possession could not be delivered. 7. In the month of April, 1996, the petitioner came to know that an alternative site has been offered on 4.4.1986 to respondents No. 3 and 4 by respondent No. 2 but in the case of the petitioner the stand of respondent No. 2 is that no alternative site was available. This step-motherly treatment on the part of respondent No. 2 would show that there was a conspiracy between respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as respondent No. 2 wanted to help respondents No. 3 and 4 in relation to Plot No. 109. When respondent No. 2 had been writing to the petitioner that no alternative site is available at Gurgaon and that the petitioner may apply for an alternative site at Ambala or Smalkha, how the alternative site was given to M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. The entire exercise conducted by respondent No. 2 for the so-called resumption of Plot No. 109 was infact to oblige respondents No. 3 and 4 either with Plot No. 109 or with the alternative plot at Dundahera. But in the case of the petitioner he was offered plot either at Ambala or Smalkha. With this background petitioner Mr. Chopra has made a prayer for quashment of letter dated 4.4.1996 vide which Plot No. 109 has been allotted to respondents No. 3 and 4 he had also sought declaration that the order of resumption vis-a-vis the petitioner is bad. With this background petitioner Mr. Chopra has made a prayer for quashment of letter dated 4.4.1996 vide which Plot No. 109 has been allotted to respondents No. 3 and 4 he had also sought declaration that the order of resumption vis-a-vis the petitioner is bad. Further prayer was made that directions be issued to respondent No. 2 to allot an alternative site to the petitioner and not to allot Plot No. 109 or in its place any alternative site to anybody else except the petitioner. 8. Notice of this writ petition was given to the respondents. It was contested and the stand of respondent No. 2 was that the writ is liable to be dismissed to the ground of delay and laches because the allotment in favour of the petitioner was made on 4.12.1979 and the plot stood resumed on 25.8.1981. The last correspondence which took place between the petitioner and the Corporation is dated 24.3.1986, it is also pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was advised to apply for refund or if he is interested in the alternative plot, he can be adjusted either at Samalkha or Ambala where the plots are available. The present petition has been filed in the year 1996 and, therefore, it is hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also pleaded by respondent No. 2 that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement and as a dispute has arisen between the parties, therefore, the petitioner should have invoked the arbitration instead of filing the present writ petition. Otherwise also, the petitioner has not complied with the terms of the allotment and has not made the construction in time, therefore, his plot was resumed and after resumption it was allotted to M/s Jindal Combines which submitted an application for allotment of a plot and after consideration that it is eligible for allotment, a plot measuring 1 acre was allotted to it vide allotment letter dated 23.1.1981. Finally, it was pleaded by respondent No. 2 that refund shall be given to the petitioner as and when applied by him. 9. Respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat village Dundahera, also filed a separate written statement and its stand was that out of the acquired area of 44 kanals 17 marlas a cremation ground/grave-yard was carved out and therefore the plot could not be allotted out of this area either to the petitioner or to anybody else. 9. Respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat village Dundahera, also filed a separate written statement and its stand was that out of the acquired area of 44 kanals 17 marlas a cremation ground/grave-yard was carved out and therefore the plot could not be allotted out of this area either to the petitioner or to anybody else. So much so, the acquisition proceedings were challenged in C.W.P. No. 9502 of 1996 and as the respondent authorities were bent upon in taking the forcible possession of the cremation ground, therefore, the Gram Panchayat had to file a separate writ petition. 10. M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. also filed C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 against the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others for the allotment of plot measuring 4000 sq. mtrs. in Udyog Vihar, Dundahera, Gurgaon or in Udyog Vihar, Phases I to V, Gurgaon, it was prayed by it that directions be given to the respondent-Corporation to hand over the possession of Plot No. 109 or in the alternative to allot Plot No. 445, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, measuring 4000 sq. mtrs. and the case set up by the firm was that on 5.10.1981 Plot No. 109, measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs was allotted to it by the respondent-Corporation and symbolic possession was also handed over to the petitioner on 1.4.1982. But it came to know that the land subject-matter of Plots No. 109 to 111 is actually being used by the residents of village Dundahera as cremation ground, therefore, the petitioner could not raise any construction as the Sarpanch and Panches of the said village interrupted and stopped the construction work. On account of this dispute the company made a request for the allotment of an alternative plot, but it was shocked to know that Plot No. 109 has been resumed on the ground that it has not been constructed by the petitioner within the stipulated period. The petitioner brought to the notice of the Corporation that as the possession has never been delivered to it, therefore, it was not in a position to raise construction on Plots No. 109 to 111. It was brought to the notice of the respondent- Corporation that the petitioner-company was willing to start the construction if vacant physical possession was handed over to it. It was brought to the notice of the respondent- Corporation that the petitioner-company was willing to start the construction if vacant physical possession was handed over to it. So much so, a civil suit was also filed by the company in the civil court at Gurgaon seeking permanent injunction against the respondents from raising any construction on Plot No. 109 and the civil suit was decreed. In spite of the fact that the suit was decreed, the Corporation did not hand over the possession to the petitioner, rather he was assured that the Corporation is taking steps for the alternative site and the petitioner also made a specific request for grant of an alternative site in any of Phases No. 1 to V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The petitioner has also pointed out in the writ petition that plot No. 445, Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, measuring 4000 sq. mtrs. is lying vacant and the petitioner-company is ready to accept this plot in lieu of Plot No. 109. Thus we can say that M/s Jindal Combines is also not satisfied with the action of respondent No. 2 in the resumption of Plot No. 109 and has made a prayer for the alternative allotment. 11. this writ petition was also contested by respondent No. 1 and 2 who took the stand that symbolic possession of the plot in question was handed over to the representative of the petitioner and after taking over the possession, it was the responsibility of the allottee to secure the same. The possession was given on 1.4.1982, and the petitioner sent the labour on 26.11.1982. As the petitioner has not raised the construction in time, therefore, there was no justification on its part to keep the plot unutilised. With regard to the stand of alternative accommodation, Plot No. 445 could not be allotted to the petitioner in view of the order passed in C.W.P. No. 15493 of 1994 in which order of status-quo has been passed at the instance of ex-land holders. 12. The grouse in the contempt petition is that as the possession of Plot No. 109 has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, the respondent- authorities should be punished for wilful disobedience of the directions. 13. 12. The grouse in the contempt petition is that as the possession of Plot No. 109 has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, the respondent- authorities should be punished for wilful disobedience of the directions. 13. It appears from the record of C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 that on 26.7.1995 this writ petition was disposed of in the presence of the counsel for the parties and it was ordered by the Honble Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice T.H.B. Chalapathi that C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 is allowed and the order Annexure P-25 dated 27.7.1994 is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the enhanced price of Plot No. 109 which shall be conveyed to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within fifteen days and the petitioner shall pay the enhanced price within one month thereafter. This order dated 26.7.1995 could not be enforced for the obvious reason as the possession of this plot could not be given to M/s Jindal Combines due to the resistance of the Gram Panchayat and the villagers of village Dundahera who were taking the plea that the area of this plot has been earmarked of cremation purposes. Therefore, Review Application No. 192 of 1996 was moved before the Honble Division Bench by the Corporation and the order dated 26.7.1995 was re-called and C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 along with other writ petitions was put up for fresh hearing with a purpose that direction may be given to respondents No. 1 and 2 for allotment of the plot. It was also directed by the Honble Division Bench vide order dated 29.1.1997 that C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996 shall also be listed along with C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994. The records of both the writ petitions further show that these writ petitions came up for hearing before the Honble Division Bench consisting of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Iqbal Singh on 31.1.1997. On that day even the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat against the acquisition of the land was also taken up by the Honble Division Bench and during the course of proceedings the Bench came to the conclusion that there was possibility of the controversy being settled between the parties by negotiations. On that day even the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat against the acquisition of the land was also taken up by the Honble Division Bench and during the course of proceedings the Bench came to the conclusion that there was possibility of the controversy being settled between the parties by negotiations. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and the H.S.I.D.C., after seeking instructions from the authorities of the Corporation, had made a candid statement that the alternative site which had been earmarked for the cremation ground will be fully levelled by the H.S.I.D.C. at its own expenses and adequate provision for electricity and water will be made, if the same has already not been made so far. He stated before the Honble Division Bench that diversion to the existing Nullah will also be provided by the authorities so that the cremation ground is not flooded during rains and no damage is caused to the public property or any other property. This direction was in fact for the benefit of the Gram Panchayat. With regard to the cases of the allottees, it was ordered by the Honble Division Bench that Shri Hooda stated before the Honble Judges that it was possible to adjust the allottees of plots who are having dispute regarding the Plot No. 109 and Plot Nos. 110 and 111 which were allotted to them, but possession was not given due to the resistance offered by the villagers. The Honble Division Bench keeping in view the statement of the learned Advocate General gave directions to the Corporation to undertake the work of levelling the cremation ground at an early date and also directed the Corporation to give alternative offer of plots to all the allottees indicating therein the tentative price which the allottees may have to pay in addition to the premium etc. already deposited at the time of original allotment and ordered that such offer shall be made to each of the allottees within a period of four weeks from that day and the matter was adjourned to 4.3.1997. The said direction was in fact for the benefit of the allottees i.e. Mr. already deposited at the time of original allotment and ordered that such offer shall be made to each of the allottees within a period of four weeks from that day and the matter was adjourned to 4.3.1997. The said direction was in fact for the benefit of the allottees i.e. Mr. Chopra and M/s Jindal Combines Pvt. Ltd. For the sake of convenience and in order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary for me to reproduce the order dated 31.1.1997 which runs as follows :- "After hearing the parties in this petition as well as the writ petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat, we find that there is possibility of the controversy being settled between the parties by negotiations. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and H.S.I.D.C. has after seeking instructions from the authorities of the Corporation made a candid statement that the alternative site which has been ear-marked for the cremation ground will be fully levelled by the H.S.I.D.C. at its own expenses and adequate provision for electricity and water will be made, if the same had already not been made so far. He also states that diversion to the existing nullah will also be provided by the authorities so that the cremation ground is not flooded during raise and no damage is caused to the public property or any other property. Regarding the allottees of other industrial plots, Shri Hooda states that it is possible to adjust the allottees of plots who are having a dispute regarding the plot No. 109 and plot Nos. 110 and 111 which were allotted to them but possession was not given due to the resistance offered by the villagers. Keeping in view the statement of the learned Advocate General, we direct the Corporation to undertake the work of levelling the cremation ground at an early date. We also direct the Corporation to give alternative offer of plots to all the allottees indicating therein the tentative price which the allottees may have to pay in addition to the premium etc. already deposited at the time of original allotment. Such offer shall be made to each of the allottees within period of four weeks from today. The matter be listed for further consideration on March 4, 1997." 14. In my opinion this order is virtually the foundation of the rights of the parties. already deposited at the time of original allotment. Such offer shall be made to each of the allottees within period of four weeks from today. The matter be listed for further consideration on March 4, 1997." 14. In my opinion this order is virtually the foundation of the rights of the parties. It was virtually a new understanding between the parties and the rights of the parties are to be governed by this order which in fact has become a Magna Carta for the parties concerned. Through this order dated 31.1.1997 the allottees were given a right of their respective adjustments and an obligation was put upon the Corporation to give an alternative offer of plots to all the allottees indicating therein the tentative price which the allottees may have to pay in addition to the premium already deposited at the time of original allotment. This order dated 31.1.1997 was in fact complied with by the Corporation when it issued letter dated 14.2.1997 to Shri S.L. Chopra and the letter runs as follows :- "You are aware that the land comprising Plot No. 109, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon earlier allotted to you vide allotment letter No. HSIDC:1A: DP:109:8249-52 dated 4.12.79, is a subject matter of dispute in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12890/96, 9502/96, 12418/94 (connected matters) pending in the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The Honble High Court, vide order dated 31.1.97, in the above referred writ petitions, has observed that alternative offer of plots be made by the Corporation to the concerned allottees. 2. No plot of size equal in area to the subject cited plot is available with the Corporation at Gurgaon for allotment whereas such plots are available at Industrial Estate, Bawal, which is about 60 K.M. away from Gurgaon. 3. Accordingly, the Corporation makes the following offers to you :- i) Plot No. 191 measuring 1 acre (4000 Sq. Mtrs.) at Bawal Investate as an alternative plot at the prevailing rate of Rs. 450/- per Sq. Mtr. ii) Alternatively, though the Corporation does not have a plot of bigger size available at Gurgaon yet it offers to club smaller pots (bearing Nos. 607, 608, 609 & 610) so as to make a single plot measuring a total of 1000 Sq. Mtr. in Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon @ Rs. 13,840/- per sq. Mtr. 450/- per Sq. Mtr. ii) Alternatively, though the Corporation does not have a plot of bigger size available at Gurgaon yet it offers to club smaller pots (bearing Nos. 607, 608, 609 & 610) so as to make a single plot measuring a total of 1000 Sq. Mtr. in Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon @ Rs. 13,840/- per sq. Mtr. The rate being quoted is the reserve price of plots measuring 250 sq. Mtrs. notwithstanding the fact that the reserve price for bigger plots of 1000 Sq. Mtrs. and above would be Rs. 18,396/- per Sq. Mtr. iii) It is further clarified that notwithstanding the option you choose, credit would be given for the amount already received from you alongwith an interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum (the rate which was chargeable by the Corporation from you) for settlement of accounts against the price of the plot whichever thou choose. You are requested to communicate your acceptance to the above offer for alternative plot either at Bawal or Gurgaon at the earliest, preferably within 15 days from the receipt of this letter so that the Honble High Court may be apprised of the same for consideration on the next date of hearing i.e. 4.3.97." 15. During the course of submission it was brought to the notice of this Court that M/s Jindal Combines had obtained a direction from the High Court that one industrial plot bearing No. 247 may be keep reserved for allotment in the event of success of C.W.P. 12418 of 1994. This order was passed by the single Judge on 22.2.2000 while disposing of C.M. No. 1318 of 2000. 16. First of all, I would like to deal with the submissions raised by Mr. Kamal Sehgal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, who made serious endeavour for the dismissal of C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996 mainly on the ground that the resumption order was passed in the year 1981 and the present writ petition was filed in the year 1996, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This submission of Mr. Sehgal cannot be accepted. The resumption order (Annexure P-11 of C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996) would show the hollowness on the part of the corporation. This order has been allegedly passed on the plea that Mr. This submission of Mr. Sehgal cannot be accepted. The resumption order (Annexure P-11 of C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996) would show the hollowness on the part of the corporation. This order has been allegedly passed on the plea that Mr. Chopra has not raised the construction of the unit within six months nor it has been completed within two years nor the unit started production within three years from the date of allotment of the plot. Secondly, it was mentioned in the letter dated 25.8.1981 (Annexure P-11) that the attention of the petitioner was drawn to a letter and also to the registered notice dated 13.2.1981 and in spite of that nothing has been done by the petitioner. No particulars of the letter have been given in Annexure P-11. Meaning thereby that the action of the Corporation in the resumption is totally a sham exercise and secondly at no point of time it has been established that the possession of the site in question was ever given to the petitioner who had been raising hue and cry from time to time and even through letter Annexure P-10 that when he went to examine the site along with his wife, he was shocked to know that the site falling under Plot No 109 is a cremation ground. This was so stated also in Annexure P-12 dated 2.9.1981. Also it was prayed by Mr. Chopra for the allotment of an alternative site. It is established on the record that a plot was allotted to M/s Jindal Combines and the possession was not given to it. M/s Jindal Combines filed C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 and the High Court gave the directions for delivery of vacant possession of Plot No. 109 to M/s Jindal Combines as an alternative site. This plot was being offered as an alternative plot for the company. When the order was re-called on 29.1.1997, suggesting that the Corporation intends to offer alternative sites to the allottees, the petitioner Mr. Chopra also knocked the door of the Court for the redressal of his grievances and for the implementation of the right which was conferred upon him in the year 1979. The respondent-Corporation cannot be allowed to wriggle out from its statutory liability. Chopra also knocked the door of the Court for the redressal of his grievances and for the implementation of the right which was conferred upon him in the year 1979. The respondent-Corporation cannot be allowed to wriggle out from its statutory liability. Firstly, it has no business to allot a plot regarding which there was a dispute and the Corporation was not in a position to deliver the possession of the same. In fact the possession was never either to M/s Jindal Combines or to Mr. Chopra and the rights of both the parties remained in fluctuation till the matter was adjudicated finally on 31.1.1997. Of course the writ petitions were adjourned to 4.3.1997 but this was only for the purpose of implementation of the order. 17. Now the position revolves whether the Corporation has the alternative plots in Dundahera, Gurgaon, if so whether the directions should be given to it for the fulfilment of its obligations which were undertaken by it before the Honble Division Bench on 31.1.1997. This theory of alternative plots which was offered to Mr. Chopra vide letter dated 14.2.1997 again was not very bona fide. 18. During the course of submissions Mr. Sehgal was confronted whether Plots No. 607, 608, 609 and 610 are lying vacant for allotment to Mr. Chopra, upon this Mr. Sehgal, the learned counsel for the Corporation, informed the Court that as this offer was made to the petitioner in the year 1997, therefore, the Corporation is not in a position now to allot these four plots. Mr. Puneet Bali, the learned counsel for Mr. Chopra, submitted that the rate quoted by the Corporation was very exorbitant and that it will be virtually impossible for the petitioner to pay the price of the four plots bearing Nos. 607, 608, 609 and 610 @ Rs. 13,840/- per sq. mtr. when the original price of the allotment of Plot No. 109 was Rs. 28.75 per sq. mtr. This huge difference will make the petitioner a pauper and he would not be in a position to start the industrial unit by arranging huge resources and funds. The offer which was given by the Corporation through letter dated 14.2.1997, quoted above, was impossible to be implemented on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was not interested in Plot No. 191 measuring 1 acre at Bawal @ Rs. 450/- per sq. mtr. Mr. The offer which was given by the Corporation through letter dated 14.2.1997, quoted above, was impossible to be implemented on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was not interested in Plot No. 191 measuring 1 acre at Bawal @ Rs. 450/- per sq. mtr. Mr. Bali further submitted that the Corporation told to the Court by placing the factual position of the plots in various Phases of Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and with regard to Phase No. IV, it was categorically informed that Plot No. 249-D of 1/2 acre measuring 1924 sq. metre was lying vacant. In this very chart (Annexure A-1 at page 153 of CWP No. 12890 of 1996) it has also been stated that Plots No. 607, 608, 609 and 610 in Phase V of Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon are lying vacant and can be allotted. Mr. Bali also submitted an application (No. 30 of 2003) during the course of these proceedings and specifically averred that after the passing of the order dated 31.1.1997 a proposal was forwarded by the Corporation to the High Court which runs as follows :- "* Now, the Gram Panchayat should be directed to accept the new cremation ground and hand over peaceful possession of the land under Plot Nos. 109-111 to the HSIDC. * The allottees have been offered plots as directed by the Honble Court. However, three of the allottees, (for plots Nos. 109 & 111) have not accepted the offer while allottee of Plot No. 110 has not responded. * Plot Nos. 109-111 have 16000 sq. mtr. Area under these comes to 4 acres. In case the Honble Court directs that these plots be handed over to the allottees after the Gram Panchayat hands over peaceful possession to HSIDC, it is requested that : * Four pots measuring 4000 sq. mtr. each be allowed to be carved out to accommodate all the four parties. * The reserve price for 250 sq. mtr. plots is approx. Rs. 13,000/- sq. mtr. whereas for plots measuring more than 1/2 acre, it is Rs. 18,000/- per sq mtr. Yet the parties being old allottees, HSIDC leave the issue of rate of allotment to be decided by the Honble Court. * However, the allotment should be with the stipulation that : * they will have to complete the project within a period of two years from the date of possession. 18,000/- per sq mtr. Yet the parties being old allottees, HSIDC leave the issue of rate of allotment to be decided by the Honble Court. * However, the allotment should be with the stipulation that : * they will have to complete the project within a period of two years from the date of possession. * The plots will not be transferable. * The plots will not be allowed to be bifurcated. * HSIDC would be free to resume the plots upon non-fulfilment of these conditions." 19. It is the grouse of Mr. Chopra that though the Corporation had been taking the stand before the High Court that it does not have the adequate area to make alternative allotment to the allottees of Plots No. 109, 110 and 111 but their stand is manifestly false because the Corporation has allotted many plots to various persons on 16.3.2001 and the size of these plots ranges from 1000 sq. metre to 1050 sq. mtrs. He has also given the names of the allottees who have been given Plots No. 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 520 and 521 @ Rs. 5,000/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the offer of allotment contained in the letter dated 14.2.1997 was virtually a concealment of true facts. On one hand the Corporation is saying that it has no land at Gurgaon but even in the year 2001 it is allotting the land at the high rates. The offer of the Corporation that it would allot the land of Plots No. 607, 608, 609 and 610 @ Rs. 13,840/- per sq. mtr. is arbitrary and the demand is illegal as the original rate of allotment to the petitioner was Rs. 28.70 per sq. mtr. If the principles of determining the compensation as applicable to the land acquisition matter is made applicable in the case of the petitioner, the price should not be more than Rs. 2,500/3,000/- per sq. mtr. It was also pleaded in this application that another piece of land measuring 5348.70 sq mtr. is available with the Corporation and this area is more in length and less in width. A suitable direction can be given to the Corporation to allot this area to the petitioner so that his right may be adjudicated and satisfied. 20. Mr. mtr. It was also pleaded in this application that another piece of land measuring 5348.70 sq mtr. is available with the Corporation and this area is more in length and less in width. A suitable direction can be given to the Corporation to allot this area to the petitioner so that his right may be adjudicated and satisfied. 20. Mr. Sehgal has not filed any reply to this application, but of course he stated that no land is lying vacant for the purpose of adjustment of the rights of Mr. Chopra, if any. Mr. Sehgal, however, admitted that Plot No. 247 is lying earmarked as per the directions of the High Court for allotment to M/s Jindal Combines. He submitted that as the client of Mr. Bali did not accept the offer given by the Corporation vide letter dated 14.2.1997, therefore, it had lost all its rights accrued to it by virtue of order dated 31.1.1997 passed by the Honble Division Bench. 21. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of Mr. Sehgal. The conduct of the Corporation in the present case is not above board. Firstly, it allotted a plot which was a cremation ground to the petitioner. Then it illegally tried to resume it, then it tried to accommodate M/s Jindal Combines and then it realised its mistake and made an offer for adjustment of Mr. Chopra as well as M/s Jindal Combines. That was accepted and it still did not implement its commitment in a faithful manner. Exorbitant price was quoted. The area offered to Mr. Chopra was less as compared to the allotted area. In spite of the fact that a false stand was taken that it had no area in Udyog Vihar at Gurgaon, it was shown through annexure A-1 that Plot No. 249-D measuring 1924 sq. mtrs. was available, still it has not been denied by the Corporation that a vacant piece of land measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs. is lying vacant out of which an adjustment can be done for the benefit of both the petitioners. In such a situation, I am not inclined to accept the stand of the Corporation that no land is lying vacant in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. In fact, three sites on the face of it are available, i.e. Plot No. 247, Plot No. 249-D and a plot measuring 5348. 70 sq. mtrs. In such a situation, I am not inclined to accept the stand of the Corporation that no land is lying vacant in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. In fact, three sites on the face of it are available, i.e. Plot No. 247, Plot No. 249-D and a plot measuring 5348. 70 sq. mtrs. as shown in the site plan attached with application No. 30 of 2003. Plot No. 247 is enough to meet the claim of M/s Jindal Combines in case its writ petition stands allowed. Though it is evident that the Corporation tried to accommodate M/s Jindal Combines or its Proprietors/Directors treating it as a blue-eyed concern over and above the rights of Mr. Chopra, who was the genuine and original allottee of Plot No. 109, still I do not want to defeat the rights of M/s Jindal Combines as the right of allotment of a plot had been conferred upon it by virtue of the order dated 31.1.1997 passed by the Honble Division Bench and also keeping in view the fact that earlier the writ petition of M/s Jindal Combines was allowed but on account of non-delivery of the possession of Plot No. 109 that order had to be reviewed and thereafter finality was given to the rights of both the petitioners by the Honble Division Bench. 22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that while giving directions to the respondent-Corporation for the allotment of sites, a direction should also be given to it that it will charge the original rate of allotment of land i.e. Rs. 28.70 per sq. mtr. in case of Mr. Chopra and at the total price of Rs. 1,83,971.79 for which this very plot was offered to M/s Jindal Combines/Equipments. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that the allotment in favour of Mr. Chopra pertained to the year 1979. The same rate cannot be now made applicable when the directions, if any, are going to be passed in the year 2003. Mr. Sehgal further submitted that it is the case of the petitioners themselves reflected in C.M. No. 30 of 2003 that the Corporation sold various plots of smaller size @ Rs. 5,000/- per sq. mtr., but in fact the price of the smaller size plots in the year 1997 when the offer was made vide letter dated 14.2.1997 was Rs. Mr. Sehgal further submitted that it is the case of the petitioners themselves reflected in C.M. No. 30 of 2003 that the Corporation sold various plots of smaller size @ Rs. 5,000/- per sq. mtr., but in fact the price of the smaller size plots in the year 1997 when the offer was made vide letter dated 14.2.1997 was Rs. 13,840/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, let the petitioners should pay the same rate which was offered to them in the year 1997 i.e. Rs. 13,840/- sq. mtr., if not the prevalent rate. On the contrary, Mr. Bali submitted that though his client is not bound to pay the higher rate than the one agreed upon in the year 1979, yet he is ready to suffer monetary loss and whatever directions will be given by the High court with regard to the rate, that will be acceptable to the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that if usual enhancements are made from 1979 by applying the principles of land acquisition, then the rate of allotment will not be more than Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. which is otherwise rational and reasonable. Mr. Bali also submitted that equity is in favour of his client for the allotment of land @ Rs. 28.70 per sq. mtr. as originally offered to him, yet the petitioner wants to see the end of litigation if a plot is allotted to him, so that he may be able to start his industry. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that his client shall abide by the other usual terms and conditions of allotment such as he shall get this project approved from the H.S.I.D.C. and would complete the project within two years from the date of possession and he undertakes that the will not transfer or bifurcate the plot. In case the petitioner violates any condition of the fresh allotment, it will be open to the corporation to resume the plot upon non-fulfilment of those conditions. 23. There is a merit in the contentions of Mr. Bali and his client as they have become reasonable when they offered that they are ready to pay the allotment price @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. The only controversy which now remains to be decided is as to which area the direction should be given to the Corporation for the allotment of land to the petitioners. Bali and his client as they have become reasonable when they offered that they are ready to pay the allotment price @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr. The only controversy which now remains to be decided is as to which area the direction should be given to the Corporation for the allotment of land to the petitioners. So far as M/s Jindal Combines is concerned, I am of the opinion that directions should be given to the Corporation to issue allotment of Plot No. 247, which was reserved as per the directions of the High Curt dated 22.2.2000, @ Rs. 2,000/- per sq mtr. in favour of M/s Jindal Combines and deliver the possession within one month from the date of the receipt of the amount as mentioned in the demand notice/allotment letter. The fresh allotment letter shall be issue within 15 days from today. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner as per the demand notice and also as per the rules and regulations of the Corporation. In case the directions of this Court are not complied with by the petitioner, it will be open to the Corporation to proceed against the petitioner according to law and regulations including the right of resumption. The petitioner shall also be bound by the other terms and condition of construction at the site. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted by the Corporation and it will not be liable to pay any interest on the amount already deposited. After adjustment of the amount, if any, lying with the Corporation, a fresh allotment letter/demand notice shall be given to the petitioner. Therefore, C.W.P. No. 12418 of 1994 is allowed in above terms without costs. 24. So far as the relief in C.W.P. No. 12890 of 1996 is concerned, it is also declared that the resumption is bad and the petitioner is entitled to the alternative allotment of plot. Directions are given to the Corporation to allot a plot measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs. out of the land falling in the scheme of Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Dundahera, Gurgaon. It will try to accommodate the petitioner over the site shown as red in the site plan attached as Annexure A-2 with the application No. 30 of 2003. Directions are given to the Corporation to allot a plot measuring 5348.70 sq. mtrs. out of the land falling in the scheme of Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Dundahera, Gurgaon. It will try to accommodate the petitioner over the site shown as red in the site plan attached as Annexure A-2 with the application No. 30 of 2003. If for any reason the plot is not given to the petitioner, it will be open to the Corporation to carve out a new plot to the extent of 5348.40 sq. mtrs. in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon for the purpose of allotment to the petitioner. The petitioner shall, however, pay the price @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr., as in my opinion this rate will be quite reasonable and rational keeping in view the fact that the fresh orders of allotment are going to be passed in the year 2003. Directions are also given to the Corporation to deliver the possession within one month from the date of the receipt of the amount as mentioned in the demand notice/allotment letter. The fresh allotment letter shall be issued within 15 days from today. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner as per the demand notice and also as per the rules and regulations of the Corporation. In case the directions of this Court are not complied with by the petitioner, it will be open to the Corporation to proceed against the petitioner according to law and regulations including the right of resumption. The petitioner shall also be bound by the other terms and conditions of construction at the site. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted by the Corporation and it will not be liable to pay any interest on the amount already deposited. After adjustment of the amount, if any, lying with the Corporation, a fresh allotment letter/demand notice shall be given to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is also allowed in above terms without costs. 25. Reverting to C.O.C.P. No. 151 of 1996, I am of the opinion that this deserves to be dismissed. The earlier directions could not be implemented because of the dispute between the Corporation and the Gram Panchayat and thus there was no wilful disobedience. 26. Therefore, this writ petition is also allowed in above terms without costs. 25. Reverting to C.O.C.P. No. 151 of 1996, I am of the opinion that this deserves to be dismissed. The earlier directions could not be implemented because of the dispute between the Corporation and the Gram Panchayat and thus there was no wilful disobedience. 26. Before I part with this judgment, I want to make a pertinent mention that the Corporations and government agencies should not try to defeat the rights of genuine persons as it gives a wrong signal. To accommodate one person on the rights of others does not reflect good picture of the working of a statutory bodies like the H.S.I.D.C. The object of the Corporation is to promote industry and it can only be promoted if harmonious and helpful attitude is adopted by the Government and Semi-Government agencies vis-a-vis their own citizens. I hope that the directions of this Court shall now be faithfully complied with by the Corporation so that the writ petitioners of both the writ petitions may be accommodated in a comfortable and congenial manner. I further hope that the directions of this Court in both the writ petitions shall be complied with in the manner as stated above and the Corporation will try to avoid the contempt petitions. This judgment of mine is only an implementation of the commitment which was made before the Honble Division Bench at one stage by the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Haryana and the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. For six years, but for the rigid untenable stand of the Corporation, those directions could not be implemented. This was not a fair exercise. Be that as it may both the writ petitions and the contempt petition are disposed of in the manner as stated above. Petition allowed.