R K GOEL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was allotted residential Plot No. 2154 in Sector 23, Sonepat vide allotment letter No. 10140 dated 24. 8. 1991 on the basis of the application submitted by him pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat, has sought issue of a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 80152/- along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent. He has also sought quashing of notice dated 1. 3. 1996 issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat.

(2.) THE parties do not have any dispute in regard to the fact that the petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 209 sq. meters on the basis of application submitted by him in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents and that he deposited 25 per cent of the price as required by the advertisement and the letter of allotment. It is also not in dispute that he made payment of first and second instalments in favour of the respondent No. 2 and in this manner he deposited a sum of Rs. 80152/ -. Notwithstanding this, the respondents have not given possession of the plot on the premise that the area in which the petitioner was allotted plot has not been developed. The representations made by the petitioner for handing over the possession of the plot of land have proved futile. Rather, the respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 1. 3. 1996 Under Section 17 (1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 requiring the petitioner to remit Rs. 49429/- towards the instalment money and enhanced compensation with an indication as to why penalty amounting to Rs. 4942/- be not imposed on him. The petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 2 on 3. 5. 1996 that he has already deposited the application money, allotment money, 1st instalment and 2nd instalment, but possession of the plot had not been given to him and, therefore, he was surrendering the plot and the amount deposited by him may be refunded along with interest. This request of the petitioner has been turned down by the respondent No. 2 vide letter Annexure P5 dated 3. 6. 1996.

(3.) IN the reply, the respondents have virtually admitted that possession of the plot has not been given to the petitioner. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the reply, it has been admitted by the respondents that they are making efforts to complete development work in Sector 23 and the possession could not be given due to incomplete development work. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to surrender the plot and claim interest over the amount deposited, by him.