RAJIV VOHRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was allotted booth No.51, Sector 21-C, Faridabad, in an open auction held on 07.03.1996, for a total cost of L 7,55,000.00. Petitioner deposited 10% of the price of the allotted site i.e. Rs.75,500.00, as bid money, at the time of auction itself. In terms of the allotment letter dated 10.04.1996, petitioner was required to remit a further sum of Rs.1,13,250.00 (15% of the price) within 30 days from the date of issuance of the letter of allotment. And, the balance consideration i.e. Rs.5,66,250.00, could be paid either in lump sum within sixty days without interest or in ten half yearly instalments with interest @ 15%. Possession of the booth was delivered to the allottee vide possession certificate dated 06.05.1996 (Annexure P1). Petitioner deposited 15% of the price within the specified time. However, he failed to furnish any of the ten instalments. Resultantly, the site was resumed by the authorities vide order dated 02.02.2001, copy whereof has not been appended with the petition. The appeal preferred against the order of resumption was accepted by the appellate authority, vide order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure P2). And, consequently, the order of resumption was set aside, and the petitioner was direct to clear all the outstanding dues with penalty of Rs.2,00,000.00 within 30 days. Now, the authorities being aggrieved against the order rendered by the appellate authority, filed a revision, under Sec. 17(8) of the HUDA Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act'). Vide order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure P7), the revisional authority accepted the revision, set aside the order of the appellate authority, and restored the order of resumption. That is how, the petitioner is before this court, and seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the said order (Annexure P7).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited 25% of the price of the site well within time, but he could not remit the balance consideration on account of acute economic hardship, and family circumstances. However, he submits that the petitioner was ready to clear the all outstanding dues with interest and, therefore, the order of resumption be set aside, particularly when, the drastic power of resumption has to be exercised as last resort. Further, he submits that the petitioner in compliance to the order, dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure P2), rendered by the appellate authority, had even deposited a sum of L 7,00,000.00, vide draft dated 09.02.2011 (Annexure P3).

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.