LAWS(P&H)-1991-9-156

MOHINDER SINGH Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA, PANCHKULA

Decided On September 13, 1991
MOHINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted a residential plot No. 982, Sector 2, in Urban Estate, Ambala. On account of certain defaults in payment of the instalments, the Estate Officer vide orders dated July 1, 1988 ordered the resumption of the plot. Petitioner's appeal against the order having been dismissed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA'), he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner avers that the tentative price of the plot was originally fixed at Rs. 19,500/-. This amount had to be paid in instalments. It is further averred that the petitioner had initially paid an amount of Rs. 2,425/- and thereafter instalments amounting to Rs. 10,120/- were deposited by him. The Estate Officer enhanced the price payable by the allottees of the plots. The petitioner claims that he as also others, who were similarly situated, filed a civil suit challenging the enhancement and requested for a grant of stay regarding recovery of the enhanced amount. It is averred that the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala ordered that the status quo shall be maintained and the impugned recovery shall be made except in due course of law. A copy of this order has been produced on record as Annexure P.1. The petitioner further avers that a notice dated April 3, 1987, under Section 17(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 for imposing a penalty of Rs. 2605.50. was served on him. The petitioner claims that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid in response to this notice. Finally, on July 1, 1988, the Estate Officer, respondent No. 2 ordered the resumption of the petitioner's plot. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.3. The petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected vide orders dated September 19, 1988. A copy of the order is at Annexure P.5. Aggrieved by the orders of resumption and the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the price of the plot was enhanced and that the petitioner was not one of the parties in the civil suit filed before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala. It has been further averred that show-cause notice under Section 17(1) had been served on the petitioner because he had failed to deposit the amount demanded from him. It is further averred that vide a notice dated July 14, 1987 the petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing on July 24, 1987. He was asked to clear the arrears. He failed to do so. Accordingly a penalty at the rate of 10 per cent was levied and the petitioner was called upon to make the deposit within 15 days. He failed to comply with the directions. Thereafter, a registered notice dated September 8, 1987 was served upon the petitioner to show cause within 30 days as to why an order of resumption of plot should not be passed. In spite of an opportunity having been granted, the petitioner failed to attend the office and to show-cause as to why he had not been able to deposit the amount. As a last resort, the respondents were forced to resume the plot in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment. On these premises, it is maintained that impugned orders were absolutely just and fair.