RAJINDER MOHAN MEHTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was allotted plot No. 176 in Industrial Area, Phase-I in the Urban Estate of Panchkula by Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'huda') vide allotment letter dated August 5,1974. Actual possession of the plot was given to the petitioner on July 9, 1981. The price of the plot including the enhanced price as a result of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of the land by the Courts was completed in driblets by 1984. Notice (Annexure P-4) under Section 17 (3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Estate Officer to the petitioner on November 12, 1990, to show cause why the plot be not resumed, as the petitioner-allottee had failed to make the construction within three years given for the purpose. The petitioner sent reply (Annexure P-5) dated January 28, 1991, explaining his difficulties why construction could not be made and praying for two years' extension. The said reply does not appear to have been taken into consideration and a second show cause notice (Annexure P 6) dated February 26, 1991, also under Section 17 (3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer on March 14, 1991, and gave an assurance that he would complete the construction within a reasonable time. He also furnished a bank draft for Rs. 15,000/- dated March 21,1991, and affidavit dated April 2 1991, undertaking to complete the construction with one year. However, by order dated May 13, 199. 1 (Annexure P-10) the site was resumed under Section 17 (4) of the Act and a sum of Rs. 2882/- was forfeited. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order under Section 17 (5) of the Act to the Chief Administrator. During the pendency of the appeal, a policy decision, Annexure P-14, was adopted by HUDA and intimation was given to all Administrators vide letter Annexure P-13 dated November. 11. 1991. According to the policy decision, where the extended period for construction had expired and the resumption had not taken place, the allottees could seek extension upto June 30, 1992, on payment of prescribed fee. It was made clear that would be the last opportunity to the plot holders to seek extension. The petitioner was, however, not considered eligible for the relief in terms of the policy decision and his appeal was dismissed by the Chief Administrator by order Annexure P-12 dated October 28, 1992.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents, date of delivery of possession and also the fact that the entire amount of consideration including the enhanced price stands paid, have not been disputed. The broad stand taken therein is that in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to the petitioner, he failed to complete the construction within the prescribed/extended period and be was thus not entitled to further extension. With regard to the policy decision, it has been argued that the same does not in terms apply to the case of the petitioner.

(3.) WE have gone through the pleading and the documents relied on by both the parties and have heard their learned counsel.