SOMESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the order dated January 2, 2006 passed by respondent No. 1. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner to a limited extent inasmuch as respondent No. 1 has remitted the case back to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for the consideration of the claim made by the petitioner with regard to the levy of interest/extension fee but has made observations that the offer of possession of the plot to the petitioner shall be deemed to be made on August 12, 1996 and therefore, the allottee was liable to pay non-construction fee w.e.f August 12, 1998. The petitioner has challenged the directions issued by respondent No. 1, whereby it has been directed that the interest of 14%/18% shall be charged from the petitioner. It has also been directed that in case of failure of the allottee to deposit the outstanding dues, the Estate Officer would proceed under Section 17 of HUDA Act for resumption of the plot.

(2.) No written statement has been filed by the respondents despite an early opportunity granted to them.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid fact, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the averments made in the present petition. Sh. Vikram Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had been allotted the plot in question in the year 1986, but despite repeated efforts made by him, the actual physical possession of the said plot was never offered. In these circumstances, neither the petitioner was in a position to raise any construction on the said plot nor the Department was justified in charging the interest on the outstanding dues.