HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. TARUN TEXTILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby that of the trial court was reversed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, was decreed.

(2.) In the case in hand, the respondent filed a suit pleading that it was allotted industrial plot No. 208 in Textile Valley Rojka Meo, District Gurgaon, now District Mewat measuring 1,950 square meters. Provisional letter of allotment was issued on 5.5.1994 after the respondent had already paid 25% of the total allotment money. In terms of the provisional letter of allotment, the plaintiff was to complete certain formalities within a period of 180 days. Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA') finding that the plaintiff did not complete the formalities, withdrew the provisional letter of allotment on 22.8.1996. In appeal, withdrawal of provisional letter of allotment was set aside by Administrator, HUDA vide order dated 22.4.1998 allowing one month's time to the plaintiff to complete the formalities. It was further pleaded that the Administrator, HUDA found that it was on account of fault on the part of HUDA authorities that the plaintiff could not complete the formalities in time as the building plan could not be prepared in the absence of zoning plan, which was not finalised and supplied to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff completed all the formalities within the period prescribed. It was so acknowledged even by the Estate Officer, HUDA Gurgaon in communication to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, but still final allotment letter was not issued. Provisional letter of allotment was again withdrawn on 21.6.2007 without opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. The order was not even served. The plaintiff came to know after seeing a notice published in the newspaper on 1.8.2007 that the plot in question was sought to be auctioned by HUDA. It was at that stage the suit was filed which was dismissed by the trial court, whereas the learned lower appellate court decreed the same. It is the aforesaid judgment and decree, which has been impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once in terms of the provisional letter of allotment, the allottee was required to complete certain formalities within specified time, on failure HUDA had full right to cancel the provisional letter of allotment. In the case in hand, the respondent-plaintiff was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,70,213.65 vide communication dated 26.4.1999, i.e., balance 75% of sale consideration plus interest and extension fee. The respondent having failed to do so and complete other formalities even in terms of the order passed by the Administrator, HUDA, the provisional letter of allotment was rightly withdrawn on 21.6.2007. The order was sent to the respondent-plaintiff. He further submitted that in terms of Section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act'), the civil court did not have the jurisdiction and the respondent could avail of his appropriate remedy of appeal etc. in terms of the provisions of the Act.