LAWS(P&H)-1992-2-238

SAROJ GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 13, 1992
SAROJ GUPTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mrs. Saroj Gupta was allotted Plot No. 1236 of 10 Marla in Sector 1. Faridabad, vide Annexure P-1 dated 5th June, 1965. The petitioner thereafter deposited the amount in full but could not make construction within the time stipulated vide letter of allotment. Thereafter vide annexure P-2, The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, gave time up to 30th April, 1978 for the construction of the building on the plot, but when the needful was not done even during the extended period, an order of resumption Annexrue P-3 dated 15th June, 1978, was made against the petitioner. An appeal, taken to the Administrator and the authority exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, was thereafter dismissed vide order dated 26th March, 1982, appended as Annexure P-4 with the petition, of the ground that the appeal had been filed beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved by the orders Annexures P-3 and P4, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this Writ petition.

(2.) The main grouse of the petitioner is that no notice was issued to her at the time when the order Annexure P-3 was passed and, as such, the said order was in violation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 , which governed the dispute at the time when the resumption order was made. In para 7 of the writ petitioner it has been specifically averred that no notice was received by the petitioner after the communication Annexure P-2 by which the period for completion of the construction had been extended up to 30th April, 1978. In reply to this averment, the official respondents have only stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why an order of resumption should not be made, but it has not been denied that no notice was issued after the order Annexure P-2 or before the passing of the order of resumption Annexure P-3 dated 15th June, 1978. In view of the above, the order Annexure P-3 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. In view of what has been held above, Annexure P-4 also cannot be sustained and that too is quashed. I have been informed by the counsel for the parties that the plot in question has since been allotted to respondent No. 5 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the allotment in her favour is maintained but a direction is issued to the official respondents to allot another plot of 250 sq.yards to the petitioner at the rate that plot No. 1236 Section 7, Faridabad had been allotted to her. There will be no order as to costs.