AJAY SINGH KINHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was alloted a residential plot in Sector 39, Gurgaon on 16.3.1995. Tentative price of the plot was Rs. 3,04,920/-. As per terms and conditions of allotment letter, the petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs. 45738/- within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter, along with Rs. 30492/- already deposited at the time of submission of application i.e. making 25% of the total cost of the plot. The petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,28,690/- in six annual installments. The petitioner has only deposited 25% of actual cost of the plot within stipulated period as mentioned in the allotment letter and has not deposited the outstanding amount despite issuance of show cause notice dated 1.9.2000 but neither he cleared the dues nor appeared before the Estate Officer for personal hearing. Therefore, a penality of Rs. 37717/- was imposed by the Estate Officer, HUDA on 14.3.2001. When the petitioner did not deposit any amount, he was again issued a show cause notice vide letter dated 15.6.2001 and an opportunity of personal hearing was also given on 22.10.2001. Since petitioner did not deposit the entire outstanding amount, the Estate Officer resumed the said plot vide order dated 11.3.2002 in accordance with terms and conditions of allotment and HUDA Rules.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the order of resumption by way of filing appeal before Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, who vide order dated 28.7.2004 remanded the case to Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for fresh decision after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Estate Officer again passed a detailed speaking order on 14.10.2004 which was further challenged in appeal before Administrator with a prayer that since petitioner could not deposit the entire outstanding amount within time due to financial problems and illness of his mother, the resumption orders passed by the Estate Officer may be set aside. The appeal was dismissed by the Administrator vide order dated 4.3.2005 with a direction to Estate the Officer to pass a speaking order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. The Estate Officer again dismissed petitioner's case by passing a speaking order on 27.6.2005. Thereafter petitioner filed an appeal under Section 17(5) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 before Administrator HUDA, Gurgaon, who exercising the powers of Chief Administrator HUDA dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7.3.2006. Aggrieved by the order of Chief Administrator, the petitioner filed a revision petition before Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana Town and Country Planning Department, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.5.2008.

(3.) MR . Gaurav Kathuria, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that petitioner was always ready to pay the balance amount but due to personal difficulty and financial position, lie could not deposit the same. The bona- fide of the petitioner is clear from the letters written to the respondent authorities mentioning therein to give details of the balance amount so as to enable him to deposit against the balance amount. It has also been argued by Mr. Kathuria that the order of resumption as well as orders passed in appeal and revision are not speaking orders and petitioner has not been given opportunity of personal hearing and, as such, orders are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against principles of natural justice.