RAM PIARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted plot No. 691 Sector 16, Faridabad, measuring 250 Sq. Yards, vide letter dated 17th November, 1969, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (On short HUDA). She had deposited Rs. 625/- towards part consideration of the price of the plot along with the application at the time of applying for the allotment of the plot. After the allotment, a further sum of Rs. 938/- was deposited to complete 25 % of the total price of the plot. The total price of the plot was Rs. 6250/-. According to the terms of allotment, the remaining price of the plot was required to be paid in 6 equated yearly instalments, including interest at the rate of 7%. According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner had deposited the entire price of the plot with interest within the stipulated period.

(2.) A letter dated 7th August, 1975, was sent by the Estate Officer, HUDA to the petitioner requiring her to pay enhanced price of the plot to the tune of Rs. 1242.42. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 425/- on 5th September, 1975 through a Bank draft. A notice was issued by the Estate Officer under Section 10(2) of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (As applicable to Haryana), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 13th November, 1975, stating therein that as an amount of Rs. 817.50 towards the enhanced price had not been deposited, a penalty of Rs. 81/- was imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner was made liable to pay Rs. 898.50. Another notice was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act on 2nd December, 1975, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within a period of 30 days as to why the plot in question should not be resumed and the amount already deposited towards the price of the plot be not forfeited on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit Rs. 898.50. The petitioner on receipt of the notice, deposited Rs. 400/- on 5th January, 1976 through a Bank Draft. While sending the draft of Rs. 400/- she had requested that the remaining amount be allowed to be deposited in the month of March, 1976, as due to removal of Khokas her husband was without any work and she was not in a position to deposit the rest of the money immediately. A letter was written on 8th March, 1976, by the Estate Officer stating that the remaining amount of Rs. 417.50 be deposited before 15th March, 1976, failing which the plot of the petitioner would be resumed and the amount already paid would be forfeited. Instead of depositing the money by 15th March, 1976, the balance was deposited by the petitioner on 19th July, 1976 through Bank draft, which was duly encashed by the Authorities. However, it has been stated in the petition that the petitioner came to know later on that the plot stood resumed, vide order dated 19th June, 1976, though the said order was never communicated to the petitioner. In the year 1980, the petitioner again received a letter requiring her to pay further amount of Rs. 435/- towards the second enhanced price of the plot. This letter was written on 22nd October, 1980, asking the petitioner to deposit the amount within one month, failing which interest at the rate of -10% would be charged. An amount of Rs. 460/- through Bank draft was remitted on 9th April, 1981. It was on 20th April, 1981, that a letter was written to the petitioner by the Estate Officer that the allotment of the plot to the petitioner stood cancelled, vide order dated 19th June, 1976 and the letter sent to the petitioner on 22nd October, 1980 should be treated as cancelled. Further, to get refund of Rs. 460/- which had already been sent to the Estate Officer, she was required to sign the form sent along with the letter of the Estate Officer. According to the petitioner, it was from this letter of the Estate Officer, dated 20th April, 1981 that she learnt about the cancellation of the allotment of the plot on 19th June, 1976.

(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Faridabad, against the order of cancellation dated 19th June, 1976 (Annexure P.6), but the same was dismissed as time barred, vide order dated 19th August, 1981 (Annexure P8). The present writ petition has been filed against the order of resumption, Annexure P-6 and the order of the Chief Administrator, rejecting the appeal., Annexure P-8.