AKANSHA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 18.8.2017 (Annexure P-17) imposing penalty qua plot No.682-K, Sector 57, Gurugram and also to quash the notices dated 27.2.2012 and 1.8.2012 (Annexures P-5, P-7 and P8, respectively) qua plot No.299, Sector 52, Gurugram and dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure P-14) qua plot No.682-K, Sector 57, Gurugram directing the petitioner to make the payments of enhancement. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot an alternative plot in lieu of plot in question.

(2.) The petitioner purchased plot No.299, Sector 52, Gurugram measuring 19 marlas and the respondents issued transfer permission in her favour vide letter dated 3.2006 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter, reallotment letter dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure P-2) was issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure P-3) offered possession of the said plot and in response thereto, the petitioner took physical possession thereof vide certificate dated 19.2006 (Annexure P-4). Vide letter dated 27.2012 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,37,010/- towards enhanced cost of the plot. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.5.2012 (Annexure P-6) informed the petitioner that the draw of allotment of alternate plot against the disputed plot No.299, Sector 52, Gurugram would be held and requested to attend the same. Vide letters dated 1.8.2012 (Annexures P-7 and P-8, respectively), the petitioner was asked to deposit the enhanced cost of the said plot amounting to Rs. 3,90,815/- and Rs. 6,30,376/-. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 4.2013 (Annexure P-9) that mini draw for allotment of alternate plot would be held and was requested to attend the same. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 5.11.2013 (Annexure P-10) demanded a sum of Rs. 22,72,200/- regarding plot No.299, Sector 52, Gurugram. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 10.2014 (Annexure P-11) to attend the mini draw of lots to be held on 19.2014 at 10.00 AM. Vide allotment letter dated 4.7.2014 (Annexure P-12), the petitioner was allotted alternate plot No.682-K, Sector 57, Gurugram in lieu of disputed plot No.299, Sector 52, Gurugram. The petitioner vide letter dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure P-13) requested respondent No.3 to waive off the enhancements of plot No.299, Sector 52, Gurugram. Further, vide notice dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure P-14), respondent No.3 demanded the additional price of Rs. 19,01,438/- qua plot No.682-K, Sector 57, Gurugram. The petitioner vide letter dated 7.11.2014 (Annexure P-15) requested respondent No.3 for settlement of accounts and thereafter moved various representations dated 14.5.2015, 16.2015, 8.9.2015 and 21.1.2016 (Annexure P-16 Colly), but to no effect. However, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 18.8.2017 (Annexure P-17) to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed qua plot No.682-K, Sector 57, Gurugram. The petitioner filed reply dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure P-18) to the said show cause notice. The petitioner vide application dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure P19) moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asked the reasons for delay in handing over the possession of the plot in question. In response thereto, respondent No.3 vide reply dated 6.10.2017 (Annexure P-20) informed the petitioner that plot in question had fallen under CWP-21962- 2014 and, therefore, the possession of the plot was delayed. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation dated 28.11.2017 (Annexure P-21) to respondent No.3 for allotment of an alternative plot and to refund the enhanced cost of the plot, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the show cause notice dated 18.8.2017 (Annexure P-17) issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner had already filed reply dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure P18), but no action has so far been taken thereon.