SURENDER KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 23.8.2011 reiterated in the letter dated 04.10.2013 declining the condonation of delay in depositing 15% of the amount of the sale consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner was allotted residential plot No. 2212, Sector 62, Faridabad on 25.06.2003. The petitioner had to deposit a sum of Rs.40,015.50p within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter, but the same was not deposited. On 02.09.2003, the allotment of the plot was cancelled and earnest money i.e. 10% of the total sale consideration was forfeited. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation, which was declined by the Administrator, Faridabad on 27.02.2004. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision. The revision was decided on 24.02.2009 with direction to the Chief Administrator to consider the issue of condonation of delay as per the relevant policy guidelines within a period of 75 days. Since the matter was not decided for 75 days, therefore, in terms of the liberty granted by the Revisional Authority, the matter was again taken up by the Financial Commissioner, Department of Town and Country Planning. The Chief Administrator was directed to take a decision as per the Policy applicable at the time of allotment within 30 days.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a writ petition since no decision was taken by the Chief Administrator. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2013 passed in CWP No. 10440 of 2013 directed respondent No.1 for the decision to be taken in respect of the relaxation of payment of 15% of the amount within a period of 2 months. The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition, wherein reply was filed pointing out that the decision had already been taken on 23.08.2011 declining the condonation of delay in deposit of the amount and that the order was re -communicated on 04.10.2013. In view of the reply filed, vide order dated 22.07.2014 the contempt petition was disposed of having been satisfied. It is thereafter, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, challenging the decision of the Haryana Urban Development Authority in not condoning the delay in deposit of 15%. Reliance was placed on Chaman Lal Singhal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2009 4 SCC 369. It is contended that the request for condonation of delay was required to be considered by the Board of Haryana Urban Development Authority, whereas the same has been considered by the Chief Administrator alone. Therefore, declining the request of the petitioner is not tenable in law.