MAYA WATI Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved of order Annexure P-1 dated September 30, 1986 and the appellate orders vide which the booth site No. 22, Sector 16, Panchkula allotted to them vide letter dated August 21, 1986 was cancelled have filed the present petition. It shall be necessary to have short resume of the facts.

(2.) The petitioners vide letter dated August 21, 1986 were allotted booth site No. 22, Sector 16, Panchkula for total consideration of Rs. 2,64,000/-. An amount of Rs. 26,400/- representing 10% of the total consideration of the plot was deposited at the time of bid itself. They were required to deposit another sum of Rs. 39,600/- representing 15% of the total amount within a period of 30 days and the balance amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- in ten half yearly instalments. The financial constraints and family circumstances prevented the petitioners from depositing 15% of the amount i.e. Rs. 39,600/- within thirty days as stipulated in the letter of allotment. Under the circumstances, they were left with no choice, but to make a request vide letter dated September 2, 1986 to cancel the site allotted to them and to refund the 10% of the amount already deposited by them. Vide orders dated September 30, 1986 Annexure P-1, the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula cancelled the plot and even forfeited 10% of the amount already deposited by the petitioners. An appeal was carried against the order of the Estate Officer before the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. on October 28, 1986. The petitioner did not hear anything for quite sometime with regard to their appeal and inasmuch as, in the meanwhile, they were in a position to deposit the required amount, they vide covering letter dated June 5, 1987 sent a bank draft to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- which was for adjustment against the balance amount due. An earnest request to condone the delay was also made in the letter aforesaid and even offer of payment of interest was also made on account of the delayed payments. The bank draft of Rs. 60,000/- was encashed by the Estate Officer. However, in spite of receipt of amount of Rs. 60,000/- sent by bank draft, as aforesaid, the petitioners received a letter dated November 8, 1987 from the Estate Officer informing them that inasmuch as the site has already been cancelled, the petitioners were at liberty to take back the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Against this order as well, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator and along with the appeal a bank draft of Rs. 20,000/- being the balance payment was enclosed. This appeal was returned to the petitioner by the Chief Administrator with the direction that the same ought to have been preferred before the Administrator, H.U.D.A., Panchkula. The appeal along with the draft, therefore, was placed before respondent No. 1 and the same too was dismissed vide order Annexure P-4.

(3.) The petitioners clamour that the impugned orders should be set aside and for that they mainly bank upon the fact that they have already deposited Rs. 1,06,400/- which was accepted by the respondents without demur and if at all they were asked to take back the amount of Rs. 60,000/- that was too late. It is further contended by them that the cancellation of plot vide order Annexure P-1 was totally uncalled for particularly when it was not on the request of the petitioners, but was on account of enforcement of clause (4) of the allotment latter. It is further contended that even if there be any breach of their part, they are prepared to deposit the entire remaining amount within two months from today and also to pay a reasonable amount of interest.