SUBHASH GOYAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the appellant-plaintiff has been directed to pay extension fee as per the revised policy. Before adverting to the arguments of the parties, it would be apt to refer to facts that in pursuance to the advertisement published by HUDA, the appellant and his wife applied for allotment of plots in draw of lots. The appellant and his wife were allotted the plots. However, the possession of the plot bearing No.662 was given to the appellant in pursuance to the allotment letter dated 14.08.1987, whereas possession of the other plot bearing No.588-P was not given, as it was under litigation and on receipt of the application for allotment of alternative plot, the HUDA vide allotment letter dated 19.09.1997 allotted the alternative plot bearing No.1329-P. HUDA on acquiring the knowledge, that appellant had not disclosed the allotment of the earlier plot, issued show cause notice dated 25.11.1997 to both husband and wife. On 20.12.1997, FIR bearing No.1183 under Sections 420, 199, 200, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Sector- 5, Panchkula was registered. The appellant and his wife vide judgment dated 23.11.2007 were honorably acquitted, thereafter, the appellant submitted application for issuance of NOC, but the same was denied, which resulted into filing of the suit claiming declaration that plaintiff has become owner by virtue of draw of lots as the entire sale price/premium towards plot has been paid and injunction was also sought seeking restraint order against HUDA for not charging extension fee on account of the fact, that fate of the allotment, was in doldrums, as appellant was embroiled in the criminal litigation.

(2.) In response to the suit, the respondent-defendant, in the written statement stated, that a sum of Rs. 3,02,754/- as on 20.10.2008 i.e. date of the filing of the written statement was outstanding. During the pendency of the suit, appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,50,794/- vide receipt No.10708 dated 19.04.2012. The said amount was returned back by the HUDA on the ground that in 2007, a sum of Rs. 2,54,260/- was outstanding. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that appellant-plaintiff had no intention in not paying the extension fee, though he was embroiled in the litigation and for that, the suit aforementioned was instituted. He further submits that since as per the statement of DW1, Prithvi Singh, Assistant Officer of Estate Office, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula, amount of Rs. 2,54,260/- was outstanding in 2007 realizing that in 2012, sum would have been doubled, the appellant sent amount of Rs. 5,50,794/- but the same was not honoured. He further submits that trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit. However, Lower Appellate Court erroneously modified the same by directing the appellant to pay extension fee as per the revised policy noted above. He further submits that amount of Rs. 5,50,794/- was returned to the HUDA but the same is stated to have not been encashed.

(3.) He submits that following substantial questions of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal:-