JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two cases have applied for the allotment of shop in Jind. There application were accepted. The shops were allotted. However, the petitioners having failed to deposit the instalments the sites were resumed. The appeals and revision petitions filed by the two petitioners having been dismissed, they have approached this Court through these two petitions. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the factual position in CWP No. 1320 of 2001. A brief reference thereto is appropriate.

(2.) On September 29, 1992 the petitioner submitted an application for the allotment of a shop in Jind. The lots were drawn on October 13, 1992. The petitioner was one of the successful contenders. The shop was allotted to him for a value of Rs. 2,20,500/ -. On October 13, 1992 the petitioner deposited 25% of the price viz. Rs. 50,125/ -. The remaining amount had to be paid in six half -yearly instalments alongwith interest at the rate of 12.5%. The first instalments had to be paid on or before May 1, 1994. The last instalment had to be deposited by November 1, 1996. The petitioner deposited the first instalments of Rs. 37,898.50 on May 9, 1994, thereafter, he did not deposit any money.

(3.) The petitioner was given notice by registered A.D. post by the Market Committee. He did not respondent. No deposit was made. No reply was filed. On October 16, 1998 a notice was published in a local daily calling upon the petitioner to deposit the entire amount along with interest within 15 days. He was warned that in the event of failure the plot would be resumed and that the amount already deposited shall stand forfeited. The petitioner still did not respond. Ultimately, on November 5, 1998 the Market Committee passed an order of resumption. The petitioner was informed of the order vide letter dated November 9, 1998. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vide his order dated May 18, 1999. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the State Government. After a detailed consideration of the matter by the competent authority the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated June 8, 2000. Hence this petition. The petitioner prays that the orders of resumption and the subsequent orders passed by the two authorities, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P7, P9 and P11 be quashed.