HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PANCHKULA Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter called 'HUDA'), Panchkula has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.1995 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa decreeing the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased a plot/booth No. 158 situated at old bus stand Sirsa in an open auction held on 27.3.1988 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,36,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, he paid 10% of the total purchase money i.e. Rs. 13,600/- as earnest money at the time of auction site itself. He was further required to pay an extra amount equal to 15% of the purchase money within 30 days from the date of communication of allotment letter to him. It is the case of the plaintiff that he never received the allotment letter from the defendant-appellant and as such the remaining amount equal to 15% of the purchase money was not deposited. Vide order dated 30.11.1988 the appellant HUDA cancelled the allotment without affording an opportunity of being heard. The statutory appeal filed before the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Hisar, was also dismissed vide order dated 07.5.1991. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 30.11.1988 canceling allotment of the plot to the plaintiff on various grounds including violation of principle of natural justice and without jurisdiction. The order dated 7.5.1991, whereby, the appeal was dismissed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA was also made subject matter of challenge in the civil suit. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is entitled for allotment of the plot as he was always ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount of 15%, but the defendants have not acceded to his request and rather threatened to re-auctioned the plot/booth in question. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed.

(2.) On notice having been issued to defendant HUDA, written statement was filed pleading therein that the allotment letter was sent to the plaintiff through registered post on the address given by him at the time of auction vide memo No. 10332 dated 12.5.1988 but the registered letter it was returned back with the remarks "bidder is out of station and not known when he will come back". It was alleged that the plaintiff intentionally did not receive the copy of allotment letter. The UPC letter memo No. 12862 dated 2.6.1988 requiring the plaintiff to deposit 15% amount was never received back by defendant HUDA. Even if the registered letter or UPC is not received by the plaintiff, he should have contacted the Estate Officers, but the plaintiff has not done so. Thus, cancellation of the plot has been justified by the defendant HUDA.

(3.) On the respective pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court formulated the following issues:-