MUKUL JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P5), rendered by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bhadurgarh (respondent No.4), vide which the residential plot allotted to the petitioner was cancelled; order dated 15.05.2013 (Annexure P6), passed by respondent No.3 as also the order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P7), whereby the revisional authority affirmed the order of cancellation and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) In brief, the case set out by the petitioner is that a residential plot bearing No.1453, Sector 9-9A, Bhadurgarh, measuring 126 sq. meters, was allotted to the petitioner, at a tentative price of Rs. 2,61,164/-, on free-hold basis, vide allotment letter dated 25.07.2000 (Annexure P1). In terms of condition No.5 of the allotment letter, petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 39,174/- (15% of the total costs), within a period of 30 days from the date of allotment letter. However, petitioner failed to deposit the said amount owing to financial crisis he was faced with. But, vide letter dated 26.08.2001 (Annexure P2), issued by respondent No.4, petitioner was again informed to deposit the said amount. Resultantly, vide a demand draft bearing No.463760/09/2001, dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P4), appended with a letter of an even date (Annexure P3), addressed to respondent No.4, petitioner deposited the requisite amount. But, despite that, petitioner was not responded to. And, it was only in the year 2012, on a visit to the office of respondent No.4, petitioner learnt that the residential site allotted to him had already been cancelled, on account of failure to deposit 15% amount, vide order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P5). And, the amount of earnest money (10% of the total cost) deposited by the petitioner, along with the application had also been forfeited. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation was dismissed by the Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak (respondent No.3) for lack of jurisdiction, vide order dated 15.05.2013 (Annexure P6). Even the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning & Urban Estate Department (respondent No.1), vide order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P7) . And the conclusion arrived at reads as thus:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deposited Rs. 39,174/- (15% of the total cost) on 10.10.2001, though after a delay of 412 days, but in terms of HUDA policy dated 09.04.1999 (Annexure P8), delay beyond a period of 60 days could always be condoned by the Chairman, HUDA. Particularly, when in a similar situation, respondent No.2, vide order dated 14.02.2002 (Annexure P9), had condoned the delay as regards the other residential sites in the same Sector. He also refers to the policy dated 09.04.1999 (Annexure P8), affidavit (Annexure P10) and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P11, in support of his submission.