JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, on 13.12.2010, whereby the revision filed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala was accepted and the order passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula on 22.03.2010 was set aside.

(2.) The petitioner was allotted plot No.781, Sector 10, Urban Estate, Ambala vide letter of allotment dated 18.09.1991 at the tentative cost of Rs.90,720/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the total tentative price and the balance 75% of the amount was to be deposited either within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter without interest or in six annual installments alongwith 10% interest. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount either in lump sum or in installments. It was on 22.04.2002, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala passed an order of resumption of plot after noticing that the notices dated 11.02.1993, 16.08.1994, 24.10.1994, 20.01.1995 & 13.08.2001 have not been responded. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of resumption in the year 2004. The learned Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that only one notice under Section 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') has been received by the petitioner after intimation of change of address, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not justified. It is the said order, which has been set aside by the learned Financial Commissioner.

(3.) The learned Financial Commissioner found that the notice dated 13.08.2001 under Section 17(4) of the Act was issued at the new residential address. The petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer on 30.08.2001 and showed his inability to deposit the outstanding amount and sought more time for the same. It has been found that the petitioner has failed to pay the outstanding amount even after about 10 years. It has been further noticed that the petitioner is, in fact, an employee of HUDA and that the plea of the petitioner that he is unwell is not tenable, as he was regularly working in the office during the entire period.