DIMPLE SINGLA (NOW VERMA) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure P7) whereby booth No.54, Sector 2, Panchkula has been ordered to be resumed under Section 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, "the HUDA Act") along with forfeiture of 10% of the consideration money of the site. Challenge has also been laid to order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure P8) whereby appeal against order dated 21.7.2003 has been dismissed, as well as order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure P10), whereby revision petition has been dismissed by respondent no.1.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioners were allotted booth site no.54, Sector 2, Panchkula vide allotment letter dated 21.8.1986 being the highest bidders. The petitioners deposited the earnest money i.e. 10% of the amount at the fall of the hammer and in order to complete 25% of the total amount, further deposited Rs.15,150/ - on 4.9.1986 and possession of the plot was taken. The petitioners were required to make balance payment in lump sum within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter or in 10 half yearly equated instalments along with 10% interest. Subsequently, the petitioners completed construction thereon. However, the petitioners were served with a show cause notice dated 12.5.1992 under Section 17(3) of the HUDA Act raising a demand of Rs.1,75,164.47, for which, reply was submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, another notice dated 26.4.2000 was served upon the petitioners pointing out an outstanding amount of Rs.4,40,365/ - which was to be paid within one month as well as extension fee for completion of construction amounting to Rs.15,586/ - which was to be deposited by 31.12.2000. The petitioners served a legal notice dated 23.7.2000 upon the Estate Officer, HUDA for preparation of fresh demand notice. Through the legal notice, it has been submitted that an amount of Rs.1,21,000/ - has already been deposited and use of residential premises for commercial purposes is causing loss to the petitioners. The petitioners also filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.5.2002 on the ground that the complainant is not a 'consumer'.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the petitioners have not deposited the outstanding amount and an amount of Rs.4,90,670/ - was still outstanding against the petitioners, respondent no.4 passed the order of resumption dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure P7) under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act and also ordered for forfeiture of 10% of the consideration money of the site in question. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of resumption dated 21.7.2003, however, the appeal was dismissed by respondent no.2 vide order dated 25.3.2004 (Annexure P8), as the petitioners had not deposited the entire outstanding dues after making the initial payment of 25% amount and an amount of Rs.4,90,670/ - was still outstanding against the petitioners at the time of resumption. Against the order dated 25.3.2004 (Annexure P8), the petitioners have filed a revision petition before respondent no.1.