SHAM LAL NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have moved this Court for quashing of the orders Annexure P2 and Annexure P3 passed respectively by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'huda') and the Chief Administrator, HUDA.

(2.) PERUSAL of the averments made in the writ petition shows that the petitioners gave the highest bid for commercial plot No. S. C. O. 32 in Sector 16 of Faridabad. Their bid amounting to Rs. 13,90,000/- was accepted by the authorities of the HUDA. The petitioners paid the initial premium but did not pay the "remaining instalments. Upon this the Estate Officer initiated action against them Under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Order Annexure P2 came to be passed by the Estate Officer for cancellation of the allotment. At the same time, 10 per cent amount deposited by the petitioners amounting to Rs. 2,74,517/- was' ordered to be forfeited. Appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 12. 9. 1995 by the Administrator, HUDA, who exercised the power of the Chief Administrator. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on various grounds incorporated in the writ petition but after having considered the rival contentions and having gone through the original record produced by Shri Gill, we are convinced that the order Annexure P2 is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the respondent No. 3 did not serve any notice upon the petitioners for passing order of cancellation of the allotment made in their favour. The record produced by Shri Gill shows that on 29. 1. 1990, the respondent No. 3 had intimated the petitioner No. 2 that he may take possession of the plot in question on any working Mondays between May to 31st July or August to 30th April. This letter was delivered to the petitioner No. 2. After about 1 1 months, the respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 5. 5. 1990 Under Section 17 (1) and (2) of the Act requiring the petitioner No. 2 to deposit Rs. 1,90,647/and pay interest. This notice is shown to have been sent to petitioner No. 2 in May, 1990 and the acknowledgement due bears the signatures of someone indicating that it was duly received. Thereafter, notices dated 6. 6. 1990, 21. 1. 1992/7. 2. 1992, 15. 10. 1992, 30th December, 1992 were issued to the petitioner No. 2 Under Section 17 (1) and (2) but none of them appears to have been served upon petitioner No. 2. Thereafter notice dated 4. 2. 1993 was issued to all the petitioners Under Section 17 (3) for resumption of the site on account of their failure to pay Rs. 13,19,603/ -. This was followed by notice dated 15. 12. 1993 issued Under Section 17 (4 ). On 11. 8. 1994/1. 9. 1994, a last notice was issued to the petitioners. All these notices bear the mark 'registered A. D. ' but none of them is shown to have been sent to the petitioners by registered post except the last one. Interestingly, in the notice dated 4. 2. 1993, the address of the petitioners has been given as House No. 654, Sector 16, Faridabad. In the notice dated 15. 12. 1993 and 11. 8. 1994/1. 9. 1994 also the same address has been written. However, subsequently the figure 16 has been changed to 15 by interpolation below the names of the petitioners. The person, who did this interpolation, failed to put his initials while changing the figure of 6 into 5. None of these notices were served upon the petitioners. It is, therefore, evident that the order Annexure P2 was passed by the Estate Officer without service of notice upon the petitioners either Under Section 17 (1) and (2) or under. Section 17 (3) except the first notice dated 5. 5. 1990 which was served upon petitioner No. 2 alone. This, in our opinion, cannot be treated as a faithful compliance of the requirement of natural justice which forms part of the scheme of Section 17 of the Act. It need hardly be emphasised that the order of cancellation of allotment of the plot visited the petitioners with extremely serious consequences and, therefore, it was imperative for the respondent No. 3 to have ensured due service of notice upon the petitioners before passing the order of cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of the amount already deposited by the petitioners. That having not been done, it must be held that the orders Annexures P2 and P3 are contrary to the provisions of Section 17 as well as the principles of natural justice and the same are liable to be quashed.

(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P2 and P3 are quashed with a direction to the competent authority to take fresh proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate order within a period of four months from today.