USHA RATTAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 11.08.1995 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Estate Officer; order dated 01.06.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Administrator, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator and the order dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Government in respect of resumption of plot No.2320, Sector 23, Sonepat, allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot measuring 300 Sq. meters on 13.08.1991. The petitioner was required to deposit 75% of the amount either in lump sum within 60 days without interest or in six annual installments. The petitioner has not deposited 75% of the balance sale consideration, which led to resumption of the plot on 11.08.1995.

(2.) The petitioner was earlier issued notices under Sections 17 (3) and 17 (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 on 12.10.1994 and 18.05.1995. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Estate Officer after 12 years and after execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of one Raj Pal, resident of Bhiwani in an appeal before the Chief Administrator. The said appeal was dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has not paid the balance amount intentionally and has also filed an application before the Consumer Forum to refund the amount deposited by her. The appeal was found to be hopelessly time barred. The Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the General Power of Attorney was appointed in the year 2007 when the original allottee was not the owner of the plot. Such order was affirmed in revision.

(3.) The petitioner has not produced the records of the District Consumer Forum nor disputed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had sought refund of the amount by moving an application before the District Consumer Forum. It has come on record that the jurisdiction of the District Forum was invoked in the year 2001. It appears that the petitioner has challenged the order of resumption before the District Consumer Forum as well.