HARI NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/Mandamus directing the respondents to deliver possession of the sites allotted to the petitioners forthwith and in any case to allot alternate commercial plots to them.

(2.) THE petitioners have averred that respondent No.3 conducted auction of plot in Mandi Adampur on 23.12.1981 and 16.9.1982 respectively and the petitioners were the successful bidders in the auction. As a result of the auction, letter of allotment were issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1982 and a copy of one such allotment letter is at Annexure P -1. As per the terms and conditions of allotment letter, the petitioners deposited 25% of the bid amount at the spot and the remaining 75% was to be deposited: in equal instalments as per the terms of the allotment letter issued under the provisions of New Mandi Township (D&R) Act, 1960 and rules made thereunder, it is contended that in some cases 2nd and 3rd instalment has already been deposited with the respondent -authorities, however, the possession of the plot was not given and the petitioners issued legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondents to hand over the possession of the plots. Copy of the legal notice is attached as Annexure P -2 with the writ petition. Respondent No.3 while replying to the legal, notice asked the petitions to approach the Naib Tehsildar to take possession of the plots and a copy of reply sent is at Annexure P -3. However, on approaching the Naib Tehsildar the petitioners came to know that the plots were in illegal occupation of certain persons and those persons approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of writ petition (Civil) No.871 of 1986 challenging the notice issued by the Additional Director, Urban Estate, Haryana exercising the powers of Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 for getting the land vacated. The respondent -authorities i.e. respondent No. 3 inspite of service of notice did not appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and as a result of non -appearance of respondent No.3, the petition was allowed exparte. No steps whatsoever were taken by the respondent to have exparte order vacated nor any review was filed. Copy of the orders passed by the Supreme Court is Annexure P -4.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has stated that as there was no fault of the petitioners the amount deposited by them as 25% of the bid amount deposited at the spot and the instalments which have been deposited by some of the petitioners, be refunded to them along with interest of the rate of 18% per annum.