AMRIT LAL JAIN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's challenge to the order of resumption of his plot in Gurgaon having been rejected by the learned single Judge, he has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On January 27, 1967, the appellant was allotted plot No. 860, Sector 4, Urban Estate, Gurgaon on June 27, 1967, when the appellant had not even paid the price, he is alleged to have been handed over the possession. The appellant claims that he paid the initial price of Rupees 9350/-. However, on May 9, 1979, he was asked to deposit an enhanced additional price of Rupees 870.65 on account of the increase in the amount of compensation as awarded by the court. The appellant failed to comply with the direction of the authority to make the deposit. A show cause notice was issued to him on September 15, 1980. He was called upon to explain as to why a penalty be not imposed upon him. The appellant did not respond. On November 25, 1982, show cause notices as contemplated under S. 17(1) and 17(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 were issued. Even these elicited no response. Vide letter dated July 27, 1983, the appellant was called upon to appear for personal hearing. He asked for adjournment. Ultimately, he was asked to make a deposit of Rs. 870.65 by way of penalty. The appellant informed the authority that he was unable to pay this amount. On October 5, 1983, a show cause notice under S. 17(3) on account of the appellant's failure to pay the amount together with the penalty was issued to him. He was asked to explain as to why an order of resumption be not passed. He still did not respond. He was called upon to appear for personal hearing on September 4, 1984. He still did not appear. On October 26, 1984, the authority ordered the resumption of the plot. A copy of the order is at Annexure P. 15. He filed an appeal which was barred by limitation. Vide order dated April 9, 1985, the appeal was dismissed. On May 14, 1986, the appellant approached this court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the meantime, vide order dated January 29, 1986, the plot had been allotted to the fourth respondent. He deposited the money in May 1986. The appellant amended the petition to challenge the resumption of the plot and the subsequent allotment in favour of the fourth respondent.

(3.) The only ground urged before the learned single Judge was that the allotment to respondent No. 4 was against the provisions of S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1953. The challenge having been negatived, the appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.