JYOTI NARIMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An allottee of a residential plot No. 548, Sector 14, Gurgaon was served with a notice of resumption dated 16.04.1984 on the ground that the construction had not been made by the allottee within the stipulated period as per the terms of allotment. On an appeal to the Appellate Authority, the time was reported to have been extended till October, 1985 but no construction had been made even within the said period. It appears that a request for further extension of time was made on 05.09.1985 and the period was extended upto 04.09.1986. In this letter of request for extension, the petitioner had referred to his property as falling within the plot No. 448 instead of plot No. 548. Such an extension was also granted upto 04.09.1986.

(2.) The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, however, passed an order of resumption on 04.03.1986 on the ground that no construction had been made in Plot No. 548, ignoring their own order granting an extension because as per the records, it appears that the extension had been granted only in respect of Plot No. 448 and not for Plot No. 548. The petitioner had a grievance to make that an extension had been granted upto 04.09.1986 and therefore, resumption of the property could not be made by the memo issued on 04.03.1986. This order of resumption, therefore, came to be challenged before the Administrator by preferring an appeal under Section 17(5) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act. It appears that no specific order had been passed on appeal but the petitioner has filed a copy of communication from the Appellate Authority to the Administrator referring to the fact that the request for grant of extension of time had been made with reference to Plot No. 448 and not for Plot No. 548 and that it was a clerical error. By the same letter, the Chief Administrator had also recorded the fact that the issue of the grant of extension to the allottee of Plot No. 448 could be clarified and the Estate Officer could be asked to withdraw the extension to Plot No. 448 unless it was otherwise justified. It turned out that the Estate Officer cancelled the allotment with reference to Plot No. 448 also.

(3.) To a contention by the petitioner challenging the order of resumption and the fact that the appeal had not even been disposed of by the Appellate Authority, the response from the respondents is that "when the appeal against the 1st order of resumption on 16.04.1984 was disposed of on 17.04.1984 extending the period of extension upto October, 1985, it was a self operative order that made a non-completion of construction within that period as resulting in automatic resumption. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, there was no further need for issuing any fresh order of resumption and consequently there was no need for the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal by any specific order, against the subsequent order issued by the Estate Officer on 04.03.1986.