C L ANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has applied to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bahadurgarh (for short the Estate Officer') for allotment by sale of an industrial plot at Bahadurgarh He was allotted plot No. 562 measuring 227. 50 sq. meter on the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. As per the terms and conditions, the balance amount of Rs. 3,750.00 of the tentative price of the plot could be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days and the possession of the plot was to be offered on completion of development work. The petitioner was to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the site plan of the proposed building approved from the competent authority. Petitioner's case is that on 25. 5. 1982 the Estate Officer issued a notice to show cause Under Section 17 (3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 pointing out that he has failed to complete the construction within two years i. e. by 17. 10. 1981 and thus has committed breach of the agreement. Reply was filed by the petitioner mentioning that as yet he has not been given possession of the plot and, therefore, question of construction on the plot does not arise. Meanwhile on 26. 7. 1982 the petitioner was given possession of the plot. Notwithstanding the reply, the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner was resumed by the Estate Officer Under Section 17 (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of resumption to the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. The appeal was accepted. The plot was restored to the petitioner on the condition that he will deposit Rs. 25,000.00 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order and was to submit the building plans within three months and complete the construction within one year. The amount was deposited by the petitioner as directed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. On 16. 5. 90 the Estate Officer issued a recovery notice of extension of time for construction of industrial plot. The petitioner in accordance with the said notice deposited the amount of Rs. 2,047. 50. The result was that on 14. 7. 1990 the petitioner was granted permission to erect the building and the period to this effect was extended upto 13. 7. 1992.

(2.) ON 3. 9. 1992 a notice to show cause was issued by the Estate Officer Under Section 17 (3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act pointing out that the petitioner has committed breach of condition of sale. Reply was submitted by the petitioner in which he pointed out that foundations of the plot has been dug, but due to excessive rain the construction has to be postponed. It was stated that since the period of sanctioned plan has expired, the petitioner requested the Estate Officer to inform if he could continue the construction work. No reply was received the petitioner was informed that he was liable to pay Rs. 152.00 as revalidation fee and Rs. 568.00 as extension fee. The Estate Officer on 5. 2. 1993 ordered resumption of the plot and further directed that the amount of Rs. 544.00 out of the paid amount be forfeited. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, pointing out that he could not start construction due to non-availability of water at site and further that he intended to start construction and had dug the foundation at site but because of rain the work had to be postponed. The appeal was dismissed and the plot was resumed. A further revision was preferred by the petitioner which too failed.

(3.) THE petition has been contested by respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, and the Estate Officer. It was pointed that as per the conditions of the allotment letter, the petitioner was bound to complete the construction over the plot within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession which was made to the petitioner vide letter dated 17. 7. 1981. The petitioner had taken possession of the plot on 26. 7. 1982 but failed to complete the construction within a period of two years. Since the petitioner failed to complete the construction, a notice to show cause has been issued. The reply had been considered. Personal hearing was given to the petitioner and thereupon the order resuming the plot was passed. It was denied that the petitioner failed to construct the building due to excessive rain. On the contrary, respondent's plea was that he was not keen to start construction.