ARUNA LUTHRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the words 'within 30 days of the allotment' in regulation 5(5) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulation, 1978, (for short Regulations'), mean within 30 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter or from the date of issue of the allotment letter, is the main point, which arises for consideration in these writ petitions.

(2.) THE facts of this writ petition are that on 30th October, 1980, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA'), held auction for sale of plots in Faridabad. Smt. Aruna Luthra gave the highest bid for : Shop -cum -fiat No. 33, Sector 7, Faridabad, and deposited Rs. 28310, towards the 10 per cent sale consideration at the time of auction and completed the other formalities. Allotment letter Annexure P - -1 was issued to her. According to condition No. 5 of the allotment letter, she was to deposit Rs. 42,465 within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. Payment of this amount would have constituted payment of 25 per cent of the sale consideration. According to the Petitioner, she got the allotment letter Annexure PI, dated 5th December, 1980, on 22nd December, 1980. On 16th January, 1981, Rs. 43,000 were deposited by her, - -vide receipt No. 92, book No. 270. Vide letter Annexure P -2, dated 19th January, 1981. -She demanded possession of the plot as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Vide letter dated 20th April, 1981, Annexure P3, HUDA replied that possession was being vacated for issuing possession letter to her. It was also made clear that no interest would be charged on the 75 per cent balance amount till the date of delivery of possession. Annexure P4 dated 3rd June, 1981 was issued as a reminder for delivery of possession. Vide letter dated 12th August, 1981, Annexure P5, HUDA informed the Petitioner that since the amount had not been deposited within 30 days of the letter of allotment, conditions Nos. 4 and 5 stood violated. She was asked to clear her position. Vide Annexure P6, reply was sent in which it was clearly mentioned that the letter of allotment was received on 22nd December, 1980 and within 30 days of the same, the amount was deposited. On 1st September, 1981, another instalment of Ks. 35,000 was sent by bank draft, which was duly received by HUDA, - -vide receipt Annexure P7 dated 1st September, 1981. The Petitioner is alleged to nave sent the legal notice dated 20th July, *1982 stating all facts and demanded the possession of the shop -cum -flat ('SCF' for short'), copy of which is Annexure P8. In reply to the notice, the Petitioner was surprised to learn, - -vide letter Annexure P9, dated 2nd September, 1982 that the allotment had been cancelled, - -vide office letter dated 15th February, 1982, copy of which was enclosed with letter Annexure P9. Copy of the cancellation order dated 15th February, 1982 is Annexure P10. In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the legality of cancellation order Annexure P10, has been challenged. On behalf of HUDA, the stand taken in the written statement is that the allotment letter was issued on 5th December, 1980 and the Petitioner was required to deposit the amount by 4th April, 1981 as per conditions Nos. 4 and 5 of the allotment letter and as per regulation 5(5) of the Regulations, the Petitioner had to send acceptance or refusal within 30 days as per condition No. 4 of the allotment letter. Neither acceptance nor refusal came nor amount was deposited within 30 days and, as such the allotment stood automatically cancelled under the regulations. The amount received on 16th January, 1981 was said to have been received by the clerk in routine without application of mind by the relevant authority under the Act. Receipt of letter Annexure P2, issue of letter Annexure P3 and receipt of letter Annexure P4 were admitted. On the aforesaid facts, two points arise for determination:

(3.) THE only difference between the stand of the parties is about the meaning of 'within 30 days of the date of allotment'. While according to the Petitioner, it should be meant to read '30 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter', whereas according to the counsel for HUDA, 30 days should be counted from the date of issue of the letter of allotment. The idea of providing 30 days' time is to give another opportunity to the allottee to accept or refuse the allotment and in either of the events to inform HUDA. In case allotment is not accepted then HUDA may offer it to some body else in accordance with the rules and regulations and in case allotment is accepted, the acceptance should be accompained by an amount to be intimated in the allotment letter. The amount involved is big and 30 days' time has been provided for taking a decision and for making arrangement to pay the amount indicated in the allotment letter. On this basis the only reasonable interpretation is to read the date of allotment as the date on which intimation is received by the allottee and not merely from the date mentioned in the letter of allotment. If any other interpretation is placed, then it is possible that in many cases the letter of allotment may reach the allottee sometimes immediately before or even after the expiry of the 30 days time, for which the allottee would not be at fault. It is sometimes also possible that the concerned authority may order the issue of letter, which may be typed but may be kept in office for the signatures of the concerned authority. It is equally possible that even after signatures, in issue and despatch, it may take some time and then in transit it can be delayed. There fore, I hold that the reasonable meaning to be put to the regulation is that 30 days' time would start from the date of receipt of the allotment letter and not from the date of issue of the letter of allotment.