KAMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the resumption of a booth site by the Haryana Urban Development Authorities.

(2.) A commercial booth site admeasuring 20.25 sq.mts. in Urban Estate, Faridabad was purchased by the petitioner through open auction held on 5.3.1980 upon his bid of Rs.38,600.00 having been accepted. 10% of the auction purchase price i.e. Rs.3,860.00 was deposited on the spot. Allotment letter dated 28.7.1980 was issued in favour of the petitioner. In terms of Clause No. 4 thereof, an amount of Rs.5,790.00 i.e. 15% of the auction price was deposited within 30 days of the issuance of allotment letter to make good 25% of the total price. The balance amount of L 28,950.00 was required to be deposited in lump sum without interest within 60 days or in ten half yearly instalments along with interest @ 10%. It has been averred that the petitioner deposited three instalments i.e. on 2.3.1981, 16.2.1982 and 20.1.1983 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that since no development had been carried out in the area, the balance instalments were not deposited. Thereafter, a sum totalling L 1 lac was deposited on five different dates between 20.9.1996 to 22.9.1997. However, vide order dated 12.2.2001 passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, the booth was resumed on the ground of having defaulted in depositing instalments. Such action was impugned by the petitioner by instituting a civil suit bearing No. 939 dated 8.5.2001 and which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006. The Civil Court set aside the resumption order and directed the HUDA Authorities to furnish statement of accounts after charging 10% simple interest upon the amount due and which the petitioner was held liable to pay. The respondents filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 and counsel for the petitioner conceded before the Ist Appellate Court, that a statutory remedy of appeal was available against the order of resumption and, accordingly, in terms of order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was set aside and liberty was granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of resumption was dismissed by Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad vide order dated 5.7.2011, Annexure P14. Even a revision petition preferred before the first respondent has been dismissed in terms of order dated 15.7.2014 at Annexure P15.

(3.) It is against such brief factual backdrop that the issuance of a writ of certiorari has been prayed for quashing of resumption order dated 12.2.2001, Annexure P11, as also the orders dated 5.7.2011, Annexure P14, and 15.7.2014, Annexure P15, passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities affirming the order of resumption. Mandamus has also been sought for directing the respondents to restore the booth site in question to the petitioner.