Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 executed between the Government and the 4th respondent. It is stated that by virtue of the said agreement, an extent of 20 cents of land was allotted in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P11 is only the first page of the agreement. The entire document is not available. 2. Petitioner was allotted 75 cents of land in the Industrial Area in terms of Ext.P1 order. The land was allotted for the purpose of setting up a manufacturing unit. The agreement was executed on 28.3.1985 in terms of Ext.P2. Since the petitioner was unable to start the unit, about 55 cents of land was resumed by the Government. A portion of the said land is now permitted to be assigned in favour of the 4th respondent. Petitioner had challenged the resumption by filing the writ petition before this Court. This Court did not interfere with the order of resumption. However when a review petition was filed this Court observed that the building constructed by the petitioner should not be given to others and the balance extent of land can be allotted to other parties after excluding the building and also providing access to the building. It is the contention of the petitioner that contrary to the order in the review petition, i.e.Ext.P8, land was allotted to the 4th respondent preventing access to the petitioner's building. That apart, a representation is pending before the Government as Ext.P12, which is not disposed of so far.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent inter alia stating that they have obtained allotment of an industrial plot, where they intent to start a unit for paint manufacturing. According to them petitioner has necessary access to their plot and the contrary contention is absolutely baseless.
4. Ext.P14 is a rough sketch, which would show that the petitioner's unit as well as that of the 4th respondent's allotted area is having separate access to the road. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that their building cannot have access cannot be sustained. Still further, the argument of the petitioner is that if the Government considers Ext.P12 and passes a favourable order, their requirement is for the adjacent land and if it is allotted to the 4th respondent, they may not get the advantage of utilising the adjacent land.
5. It is pertinent to note that despite the fact that an allotment was made in respect of 75 cents of land as early as on 2.3.1985, and an agreement was executed immediately thereafter, the petitioner was unable to utilise the same for the intended purpose, as a result of which, the Government was forced to resume 55 cents of land. Once the resumption had been completed and the same has been confirmed by this Court, I do not think that the petitioner can ventilate a further grievance that the adjacent plot should not be given to any body else. The only restriction imposed on the respondent authorities was to ensure that the petitioner has access to the main road. It is evident from the rough sketch produced that the petitioner's building has access to the main road. That apart, the building constructed by the petitioner had not been resumed. Under such circumstances, the respondent authorities have already complied with the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the allotment in favour of the 4th respondent cannot be found fault with.
6. Having regard to these factual circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the agreement between the Government and 4th respondent. However, if the Government is willing to provide additional land to the petitioner, it shall always be open for the Government to provide the same if land is available and the petitioner projects any purposeful need for such land.
In the said circumstances, while declining the relief of challenging Ext.P11, the Government is directed to consider Ext.P12, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/ A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE jm/