KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Estate Officer dated 7-7-1983 and 15-1-1985 directing the petitioner to stop construction on plot No. 34, Sector-14, Gurgaon. The petitioner is owner of the aforesaid plot situated in Urban Estate, Gurgaon (Haryana). The amount due to the respondents has been entirely paid up. The petitioner had purchased the aforesaid plot from the original owner on 25-2-1981 who has been allotted the plot on 1-9-1974. It appears that the original allottee did not construct on the plot in accordance with the allotment letter. He rather sold the plot to the petitioner. The transfer of ownership was approved by the respondents on the condition that the petitioner completes the construction on or before 25-8-1981. After purchasing the plot, the petitioner went abroad and gave power of attorney to his brother namely Baseshar Sharma. Since the power of attorney did not raise construction on the plot, the respondents were constrained to resume the plot by order dated 7-7-1983. The petitioner submitted an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 13-9-1983. He also made an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner sought permission to complete the construction. The respondents issued an order on dated 19-4-1984 granting permission to the petitioner for completion of the construction on the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid letter. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for water connection, which was also sanctioned on 8-6-1984 (Annexure P-4). On 15-1 -1985, the petitioner was again directed to stop construction forthwith. It was mentioned that the appeal filed by the petitioner was fixed for hearing on 8-5-1984. Since, the petitioner did not appear, it was dismissed for default. Therefore, in view of the earlier order of resumption, the petitioner was directed to stop construction. The petitioner submitted a representation on dated 27-4-1985 stating therein that the construction has virtually been completed, therefore, the petitioner be permitted to complete the construction and order of resumption be set aside, when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in the writ petition. On 30-5-1985, this Court granted an interim order as follows : The learned counsel for the respondents requests for time to enable him to file the written statement. Adjourned to 11th July, 1985. The petitioner says that he may be allowed to construct the building at his own risk and responsibility and in case the writ petition is dismissed, he will be bound by the decision subject to right of appeal. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, the counsel for the respondents has no objection in case the petitioner constructs the building. We order accordingly.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has completed the construction. The writ petition was admitted on 11-2-1986. Subsequently, the petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge the order dated 15-1-1985.