RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the resumption of a built up booth in Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana.

(2.) IN the year 1998, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA') floated a rehabilitation scheme in aid of the small time vendors doing their business along side the road leading to Mata Mansa Devi Temple and offered booths/kiosks on free hold basis in the new Shopping Centre in Mansa Devi Market, Panchkula. Upon an application having been made, petitioner was offered booth No. 246, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Market, Panchkula measuring 22.68 sq.mtr. under the rehabilitation scheme for a premium of Rs. 2.79 lacs. The petitioner having deposited 10% of the total premium amount i.e. Rs. 27,900/ -, he was issued allotment letter dated 3.4.2000 and was even offered possession of the booth. A sum of Rs. 41,850/ - i.e. 15% of the premium was deposited on 1.5.2000 so as to make good 25% of the price of the booth. As per condition No. 6 of the allotment letter, the allottee had the option to make the balance payment i.e. 75% price in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in ten half yearly instalments along with interest @ 15% on the remaining amount. It is the petitioner's case that even though he had opted to pay the balance amount in ten half yearly instalments, but on account of the illness of his son, he could only deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - on 20.12.2002. A number of show cause notices were issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula to the petitioner in the years 2001 and 2002 calling upon him to deposit the instalments that had become due along with 15% interest. Failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the instalments led to the passing of a resumption order dated 27.2.2003, Annexure P1, by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula in respect of the booth in question along with forfeiture of 10% of the consideration money. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed in the light of order dated 2.9.2003, Annexure P2, passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, respondent No. 2.

(3.) AFTER the passing of the order dated 2.9.2003 by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal against the order of resumption, the petitioner even filed a revision petition before respondent No. 1 i.e. the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department albeit with some delay. The revision petition also stands dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2008 passed by respondent No. 1 at Annexure P3.