RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the resumption of an Industrial Plot No. 44 (measuring 1,250 sq. yds.) in Sector 24, NIT Faridabad, allotted in his favour for the construction of a factory building by the respondent-authorities. The ground for resumption is that in violation of the terms and conditions of allotment, he failed to complete the construction of the building within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of issue of the allotment order. A show-cause notice was issued to him vide Estate Officer's Memo No. 44529/AUE dated 20th December, 1972 asking the petitioner to show-cause within 15 days as to why the building in question be not resumed and the deposit made by him be not forfeited to the Government. In reply to this show-cause, the petitioner admittedly did furnish explanation by submitting that his father had suffered a long drawn illness and the petitioner had to spend heavily on his treatment. It was also pleaded that his mother met a fatal accident and for all these reasons he remained mentally disturbed for quite long and thus could not devote his time and energy towards the construction of the building in question. In that reply, it was also pleaded by the petitioner that the time for the construction of the building be extended by another year. Somehow, this stand of the petitioner found no favour with the Estate Officer and the impugned order Annexure 'A' dated April 5, 1973 was passed resuming the plot and forfeiting the amount already deposited by him. On appeal by the petitioner, the Chief Administrator Urban Estates, vide his order dated June 20, 1973 varied the order of the Estate Officer, while maintaining the order of resumption he allowed refund of the surrender value of the plot. On a further revision under Section 11 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) the order of the Administrator was affirmed by the Secretary to Government, vide his impugned order dated July 20, 1973, Annexure 'B'.

(2.) Now the challenge to the impugned orders Annexures 'A' and 'B' is two fold :- (i) the notice issued to the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the above-noted Act; and (ii) the first order dated April 5, 1973 Annexure 'A' passed by the Estate Officer is a non- speaking order and does not show any applicability of mind by that authority.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent-authorities, it is pleaded that the orders are good and valid according to the provisions of above-noted Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the notice issued to the petitioner is also in consonance with the provisions of the statute and Rules and the order Annexure 'A' does not suffer from any infirmity.