BRIJ LAL GARG Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE transferee of the original allottee has filed CWP No. 12126 of 2007 and the original owner has filed has filed CWP No. 14319 of 2007 by involving Article 226 of the Constitution. Both the writ petitions are proposed to be decided by this common order as the question of law is in respect of the same property. However, facts are being referred from CWP No. 12126 of 2007.

(2.) IN the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing a condition incorporated in the letter dated 17.4.2007 (P.4) while granting him permission to transfer property. According to the condition the petitioner is required to submit an affidavit that the petitioner has not filed any case in a Court against HUDA. A further prayer for quashing resumption order dated 9.7.2007 (annexure P.11) has also been made.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that respondents are charging compound and penal interest on delayed payment from the allottees. It averred that no compound interest or penal interest could be charged in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ruchirca Ceremics v. HUDA, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 617 : 2001(1) PLJ 109 and that of this Court in the case of Gian Inder Sharma v. HUDA, 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 279. As the representation of the petitioner which was already subjudice before the authority and no decision was being taken thereon the petitioner was compelled to file CWP No. 7050 of 2007 in this Court. The petition was disposed of on 11.5.2007 in terms of the orders passed on 8.5.2007 in CWP No. 3737 of 2007 (Annexure P.6). Thereafter vide letter dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P.7) the respondents recommended the case of the petitioner with the observation that the orders of the High Court are to be meticulously complied with. Apart from this, the petitioner paid the entire amount on 14.3.2007 and 22.3.2007 (Annexure P.8 and P.9). The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 25.6.2007 (Annexure P.10) asserting that no compound interest can be charged from the allottee in respect of the period of default. However, in a haphazard manner the entire directions have been disobeyed and the impugned order dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure P.11) has been passed in utter defiance of the directions issued by this Court and for that purpose the petitioner filed COCP 1069 of 2007. This Court was of the view that since the order has been passed and the remedy is to challenge the same. The contempt petition was withdrawn on 31.7.2007 with liberty to challenge the order