ANIL GODARA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20.07.2000, the petitioner was allotted residential plot No.529, Sector 24, Panipat on a premium of Rs. 12,43,250/-. 10% of the premium was paid as earnest money at the time of application, and as per the allotment letter, 15% amount of the premium was to be paid within thirty days. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of the allotment letter, 15% amount of the premium was paid within thirty days. Further, as per the allotment letter, the balance 75% amount (Rs. 9,32,437/-) was to be paid in lump sum within sixty days from the date of issuance of allotment letter or in annual installments with interest.

(2.) Undisputedly, the petitioner did not pay the remaining 75% amount either in lump sum or in installments up to 25.01.2002, when the respondents issued a notice to him under Section 17(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUDA Act'). He was also given opportunity to appear in person. But the petitioner neither responded to the notice nor appeared in person nor made the payment of the balance amount. Consequently, the plot in question was resumed vide order dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure P-6) in exercise of the powers under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act together with forfeiture of 10% of the total price of the plot as per the HUDA Act. As per the respondents, the resumption order was duly communicated to the petitioner.

(3.) For five years the petitioner did not file any appeal against the said order. However, it is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2007 when he had written a letter to the respondents for intimating him about the remaining amount due, he was informed that the plot of the petitioner had already been resumed vide order dated 30.10.2002. Later on, after getting the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal against the resumption order before the Appellate Authority on 21.10.2008. The said appeal was ultimately dismissed on 19.01.2009 after hearing the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondent/HUDA. The revision petition preferred against the said order has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2012.