DAVINDER SINGH Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, URBAN ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased shop-cum-flat No. 47 in Sector 8, Panchkula in an open auction held on 24.7.1981. The bid was for a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/-. As per the prescribed procedure, 10% of the price was to be deposited on the fall of the hammer and 15% within thirty days thereof. A letter of allotment dated 24.8.1981, Annexure P1 was thereafter issued to the petitioners and they were given the option to pay the balance amount in eight half yearly instalments starting from 24.2.1982. The petitioner accepted the allotment and also paid one full instalment and a part of the second totalling Rs. 2,24,488-44P. in all. As per Clause 6 of the letter, Annexure P1, the possession of the site was to be offered to the petitioners on the completion of development works in the area and intimation to this effect was required to be sent to the petitioners as per the procedure laid down in Section 42 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter called the Act). It is the petitioner's case that no such intimation was ever sent and as a matter of fact the entire area remained un-developed, on which they surrendered the plot vide communication, Annexure P2 dated 25.3.1983 which was duly received by the respondents. The petitioners however, received a show cause notice dated 18.10.1983 from the Estate Officer, Panchkula under Section 17(1) of the Act to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 12,072-60P. be not imposed on them. The petitioners in their communication, Annexure P3 dated 15.11.1983 sent a reply pointing out that they had already surrendered the plot on 25.3.1983 and as such the question of levy of penalty did not arise. They also claimed that the entire amount of Rs. 2,24,488-44P, which had been paid to the respondents, should be refunded to them with interest. The respondent-Estate Officer, however kept silent for about two years and ultimately vide letter dated 7.2.1985, Annexure P4, informed the petitioners that their request for surrender had been accepted and out of a total amount of Rs. 2,24,488-14P. paid by them a sum of Rs. 1,58,730-25P only was refundable. Admittedly this amount had been actually re-paid to the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA (respondent No. 1). This appeal was rejected vide order Annexure P6 dated 30.7.1985 holding that the surrender of a plot was envisaged under the Act, but a sum of Rs. 1,58,730-25P. only out of the total amount, which had been deposited was refundable as per guidelines, Annexure P7 issued on 12.2.1985 under Regulation 14 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Land & Building) Regulations, 1978 and the delay from 25.3.1983 to 7.2.1985 in the disposal of the surrender application was on account of the fact that the guidelines afore-mentioned had not been framed. Aggrieved by the orders, Annexure P4 and P6 the present petition has been filed.

(2.) The primary case of the petitioner is that the entire amount of Rs. 2,24,488-44P was refundable as no guidelines had been framed till 12.2.1985 and the plot in question had been surrendered two years prior thereto i.e., on 25.3.1983.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondents and the basic facts have not been denied. It has been pleaded that the guidelines, Annexure P-7 had been notified on 12.2.1985 pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting held on 16.1.1985. It has also been pleaded that some letters had been issued to the petitioners in September, 1982 calling upon them to take possession of the plot in question but they had not done so.