ROOCHIRA CERAMICS Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having taken advantage of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 23.10.1996 and 4.12.1996 (Annexures P.2 and P.3), the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the communication dated 13.2.1997 issued by the Estate Officer and for directing the respondents to refund the alleged excess amount demanded and recovered from it but as acceptance of petitioner's prayer would amount to violation of Apex Court's order, we see no justification to entertain this petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case show that the Estate Officer, on the basis of the application filed by it, allotted industrial plot No. 5-B in Sector 15-A at Faridabad to the petitioner. In terms of para 2 of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 2,61,360/- as the tentative price for 1.80 acre plot. It was required to pay the 25% of the total price in the form of earnest money within a period of 30 days. The balance amount of Rs. 1,96,020/- was payable in lumpsum within 60 days or in six equated annual instalments together with interest @ 10%. For a period of more than one decade the petitioner did not pay the tentative price to the respondents but continued to retain the possession of the public property. The Estate Officer, Faridabad initiated action against the petitioner under Section 17. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.9.1994. Opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to it but the petitioner persisted with the default. Ultimately, the Estate Officer passed the order for resumption of the site. Having failed to persuade the appellate and the revisional authorities to pass order in its favour, the petitioner filed CWP No. 14676 of 1995. While accepting the writ petition on 11.3.1996 (reported as 1996 PLJ 462) a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order :

(3.) SOON thereafter the petitioner moved I.A. No. 3 of 1996 with the prayer that the direction issued by the Supreme Court, which had not been recorded in the order dated 23.10.1996, may be incorporated therein. The application was disposed of by the Apex Court on 4.12.1996 (reported as 2001(1) PLJ 8 SC) by passing the following order :-