SATISH KUMAR ARYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being the highest bidder, built up Booth No.110, Sector Sector-55, 55, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the disputed booth) was allotted to the petitioner on 5/11/2000 05.11. for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,70,000.00 ,000/- (rupees nine lakhs seventy enty thousand thousand). Since the petitioner defaulted and did not make payments in time, the disputed booth was resumed umed vide order order dtd. 26/5/2004 (Annexure P P-3). Appeal against the said order was allowed vide order dated 228/1/2014 (Annexure P-16) and the resumption order was set aside. However, a revision petition was preferred by the respondents against the said order which was allowed on 16/5/2017 setting aside the appellate order and restoring the order of resumption. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The case set out by the petitioner is that he had already deposited 35.92% of the total sale consideration whe when n the disputed booth booth was resumed and that the resumption was order ordered in a mechanical manner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to present his case for at no point of time was any show-cause cause notice served upon the petitioner. It has been averred erred that even after the order of resumption having been passed, no eviction proceedings were initiated which could have been an indication to the petitioner that the disputed booth th had been resumed. It has been averred that it is well settled that resumption is a very harsh action and should be the last resort when all other efforts to recover the outstanding amount have failed.

(2.) It has also been averred that even with regard to hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of resumption, no intimation was given to the petitioner nor was he informed that the appeal had been dismissed in default. On the contrary, a demand was raised from the petitioner which led to the petitione petitioner depositing Rs.11,98,000.00 which was duly accepted and encashed by the respondents but was subsequently refunded in an arbitrary manner manner.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In the written statement, statement, it has been averred that 25% of the total sale consideration was paid by the petitioner in time. The balance 75%, as per Clause No.5 of the allotment letter, letter was required to be paid either in lump sum without interest within within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in ten half yearly installments along with interest @ 15% per annum. The amount to be paid qua each installment was specified in the allotment letter itself in i.e. Clause 23 thereof. It was also specified that in case of delay in payment payments, interest would be charged @ 18% per annum. Possession of the disputed booth was delivered to the petitioner on 23/1/2001 (Annexure R-2). Since the petitioner failed to make the payment of installments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter lett and not even a single installment was paid by him, show show-- cause notices under Sec. 17(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Act 1977 (for short the '1977 Act')) (Annexure R-3) colly olly,, were issued on 18/2/20 18/2/2002, 27/3/2002, 29/4/2002, 2, 4/6/200 02 & 5/8/2002.. Despite issuance of the notice notices (ibid), the outstanding amount was not paid as a result of which the disputed booth was resumed on 26/5/2004. The appeal filed by the petitioner was initially dismissed in default on 21/12/2004 12.2004 (Annexure R R-4).. He filed another appeal against the resumption order in 2011, which was also dismissed on 3/5/2011 (Annexure R-55). He then preferred CWP No. 704 of 2012, which was disposed of on 15/10/2021 with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal on merits. Thereafter, vide order dtd. 20/3/2014, the appeal was decided on merits and the resumption order was set aside. However, revision petition w was as preferred by the respondents, which was allowed on 16/5/2017 16/5/2017.. On merits also, a similar stand has been taken.