HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief narration of facts that have led the parties to the current stage would be imperative.

(2.) Pursuant to a re-allotment letter dtd. 21/1/2004 (P-1), Arun Kumar Goyal-respondent No. 2 (allottee) was allotted an industrial plot No. 118, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula. And per condition No. 21 thereof, production, in terms of the approved project, was required to be commenced within six months. For the survey branch reported that the allottee had failed to commission the unit, he was served with a notice of resumption dtd. 2/12/2004, under Sec. 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (the Act). And eventually, for neither the site was fully constructed nor the production commenced, vide order dtd. 30/1/2006 (P-5), the Estate Officer, under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, ordered resumption of site and the building constructed thereon. Further, 10% of the consideration amount and other dues, payable up to the date of resumption, were forfeited. The said order was assailed by the allottee in appeal under Sec. 17(5) of the Act. However, the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, (Appellate Authority), vide order dtd. 19/12/2014, dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation as also on merits. For against the order of resumption dated 30/31/1/2006, the appeal could be filed within 30 days. Whereas, the same was instituted on 28/12/2006. And the explanation rendered by the allottee to explain the alleged delay could not be countenanced, for it was difficult to accept that an allottee, facing resumption, was not aware of the status of the said proceedings. Further, there was an apparent violation of condition No. 21 (ibid).

(3.) Whereafter, being aggrieved, he preferred a revision under Sec. 17(8) of the Act. And upon analysis of the matter in issue, the Revisional Authority, vide order dtd. 7/7/2015, concluded that order of resumption was never served upon the allottee. Thus, the observation that it was hard to accept that an allottee, facing resumption, was not aware of the status of the proceedings was equally misconceived. In fact, it was the fault of the Estate Officer that the order of resumption was sent on the wrong address. But, it was also true that per condition No. 21, the allottee was required to commission the unit within six months of the allotment, i.e. up to 20/7/2004. Whereas, the allottee had submitted the building plans, seeking necessary approvals, after more than a year. However, it was not disputed either that building plans submitted by him on 6/6/2005, were kept pending by the competent authority. And no intimation was sent to the allottee either about their approval or rejection. Thus, the fault equally lay with the authorities, as they kept the claim of the allottee alive, all this while. The sales tax returns brought on record by him w.e.f. 2010, proved that the unit was functional at site and in production. Therefore, bonafides of the allottee that he was genuinely willing to run the industrial unit were duly proved. Accordingly, the revision was allowed. And the order of resumption was set aside, subject, however, to a penalty equal to 1% of the total sales for the financial year 2014-15. Which, the allottee was required to deposit within 10 days from the date of the said order.