BIADA may resume possession when an allottee breaches a court-accepted undertaking to restart operations.

BIADA allotted the petitioner an industrial plot in 2007, and a 90-year lease was executed in 2008.

After the unit’s production was affected by financial difficulties, the allotment was cancelled in 2022.

In an earlier writ proceeding, the cancellation orders were set aside on the basis of the petitioner’s undertaking to resume industrial activity, with BIADA permitted to retake possession if the undertaking was breached.

Following restoration of possession, BIADA inspected the premises in November 2023, found the unit non-functional, issued notice, and took possession on 5 December 2023.

The petitioner claimed that machinery repairs and other revival efforts were underway and challenged the repossession, including on natural-justice grounds.

1. Whether BIADA was entitled to retake possession after the petitioner failed to commence industrial activity in accordance with the undertaking accepted by the Court.

2. Whether BIADA’s action was invalid for failure to afford the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard.

An undertaking furnished to and accepted by a court binds the party that gave it; where the court’s order expressly specifies the consequences of breach, the party cannot avoid those consequences merely by relying on difficulties encountered in compliance.

In the earlier proceeding, the Court expressly permitted BIADA to resume possession if the petitioner failed to comply with the undertaking, and reserved liberty to BIADA to approach the Court.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decisions in M/s Yasraj Cycle Rickshaw Udyog v. State of Bihar & Ors., MJC No. 1547 of 2023, and Kavish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors., MJC No. 1826 of 2023, for the principle that an undertaking given to the Court is binding and cannot subsequently be modified on the ground of compliance difficulties.

No specific statutory provision is identified in the judgment.

The petitioner had undertaken to commence industrial activity within specified periods, and the earlier order expressly authorized BIADA to retake possession upon breach.

BIADA’s inspection found the unit locked and production not commenced; the petitioner’s assertion that machinery was present and that repairs or procurement were underway did not establish compliance with the undertaking to commence activity within the stipulated period.

The Court further found that BIADA inspected the premises and issued notice before taking possession, and therefore rejected the natural-justice challenge.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.