GULMOHAR ESTATES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are inter-related and, therefore, we are disposing them by a common order. In the petition filed by Gulmohar Estate Ltd. , prayer has been made to quash order dated 20. 1. 1995 passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and also for restraining respondent No. 2 from taking any action pursuant to the impugned order. In the writ petition filed by the Garden Estate Residents Welfare Association, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to comply with the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the provisions of the Haryana Apartments Ownership Act, 1983 as well as Article 3 of the agreement entered into between respondents 2 and 3. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to take over the colony and to complete the external and internal works within a period of three months and to provide amenities in the colony at the cost of the residents and/or to transfer this responsibility to the petitioner association. A prayer has also been made to register the sale deeds in the names of the residents who have paid full and final consideration money.

(2.) KEEPING in view the complex nature of the dispute raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to set out some facts from both the petitions. C. W. P. No. 2890 of 1995

(3.) AFTER issue of the order dated 4. 6. 1987, the petitioner undertook construction of the group-housing colony. On 29. 11. 1989, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioner squiring it to deposit the revised external development charges at the rate of Rs. 22. 06 lacs per gross acre. It was also directed to execute an agreement on non-judicial stamp paper incorporating the above rate and schedule of payment within a period of 30 days. On the basis of partial completion of the colony, the petitioner applied for issue of a partial/provisional completion certificate. After considering this application, respondent No. 2 issued order dated 5. 6. 1991 and granted partial/provisional completion certificate subject to the conditions enumerated in that letter including the one requiring payment of external development charges. The petitioner did not pay external development charges as required by order dated 4. 6. 1987 read with letters dated 2. 11. 1989 and 5. 6. 1991* but wrote letter Annexure P11 to the respondent No. 2 requesting him to grant extension of time in the payment of instalments upto December, 1991. The respondent No. 2 did not feel convinced with the genuineness of the petitioner's request and, therefore, notice dated 16. 7. 1992 was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why the licence granted to it be not cancelled. The representative of the petitioner appeared before the Director and after hearing him, the respondent No. 2 passed order dated 14. 1. 1993 requiring the petitioner to deposit balance amount of Rs. 453. 40 lacs towards external development charges along with the penal interest. The petitioner was directed to pay first instalment within 30 days from the date of issue of letter dated 14. 1. 1993 and second, third and fourth instalments after six months, one year and one & half year. Once again the petitioner defaulted in the payment of external development charges, but moved the Chief Minister of Haryana requesting him to intervene for rescheduling the payment of external development charges. The respondent No. 2 considered the representation made by the petitioner and called upon it to appear for personal hearing. A fresh show cause notice dated 4. 8. 1994 was also issued by respondent No. 2 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the licence granted to it be not cancelled. After hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 passed by impugned order cancelling the licence of the petitioner.