VED PARKASH Vs. THE ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners had purchased a commercial plot at Hissar-No. D.S.B. 49, in an open auction held by the Estate Officer, HUDA, on 29th December, 1987. As per conditions of auction, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 33,000/- being 10 per cent of the price of the plot amounting to Rs. 3,33,000/-. Though on the basis thereof, an allotment letter was issued by the respondents to the petitioners on 26th February, 1988, yet, according to the petitioners, the same was not received by them. Within less than four months of the issuance of the said allotment letter, the petitioners received another letter dated 20th June, 1988, intimating that as they had failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 49,500/- within thirty days from the issue of the allotment letter, the allotment had been cancelled and the amount of 33,000/- already deposit stood forfeited. The appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that at the most some penalty or composition fee could have been imposed on the petitioner under clause 8 of the allotment letter, but the resumption of the plot and forfeiture of the amount already deposited were wholly without jurisdiction and uncalled for, especially in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(2.) IN the written statement, though factual position has almost been admitted yet it is pleaded that the controversy as to whether the allotment letter was received by the petitioner or not was a question of fact which could be decided only by a civil suit and on that account the writ petition was not maintainable. On facts, the impugned order is sought to be justified on the ground that the terms and conditions of the allotment letter did confer on the respondents the authority to pass the impugned order.

(3.) WITH these observations, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of cancellation of allotment dated 20th June, 1988, Annexure P-2, as also the order rejecting the appeal, dated 19th March, 1990, Annexure P-3, are quashed. Petition allowed.