RASHMANI EXPORTS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of motion was issued. Written statement has been filed. Application has also been filed with certain documents which is allowed and document has been taken on the record. Counsel heard on the merits of the case.

(2.) By the respondent authority a plot in Sector 27C was allotted to Major C.S. Mann, who has since expired. Time was scheduled for construction. Plans have been sanctioned. It, however, appears that the construction could not be commenced within the stipulated period despite plans- having been sanctioned. The petitioner explains that it was because of the death of the original allottee as also because certain unauthorised occupants had trespassed into the land. Since, however, the construction did not commence within the stipulated time, the plot, by order, Annexure P.6, was resumed. Against such an order, admittedly, an appeal lies under, section 17(5) of the, Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 , Admittedly, this appeal was not filed and the petitioner has straightaway come to this Court in this writ petition. Another fact worth mentioning is that during the pendency of this writ petition the extension fee was remitted to the respondent authority which was accepted as is clear from Annexure P. 11. However, it was returned to the petitioner on the ground that it was wrongly accepted, the Estate Officer did not know that the present writ petition was pending. It is, therefore, urged that the amount was accepted under mistake. On merits, it has been argued by the respondents that the petitioner could not explain the delay in commencing construction and, therefore the respondents were perfectly justified in resuming the plot.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel at length, we are of the opinion that this writ petition must be allowed. So far as the question of availing of alternatively remedy of filing an appeal is concerned, it has already been settled that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertainment of a writ petition if the circumstances so warrant. The petitioner has explained that the filing of the appeal would have been a futile exercise and we also agree with this contention. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the filing of the appeal under section 17(5) of the aforesaid Act is not fatal to the petition.