LAWS(P&H)-2009-1-76

SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On January 29, 2009
SANDEEP KUMAR Appellant
V/S
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing resumption order dated 10.5.2006 (P-8) passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat-respondent No. 2; order dated 24.11.2006 (P-10) passed by the Appellate Authority- Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak- respondent No. 4 dismissing the appeal; and order dated 8.2.2008 (P-12) passed by the Revisional Authority-Commissioner and Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Department.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted an industrial Plot No. 386, Sector 25 (Part-II), Panipat, vide allotment letter dated 2.5.2001 (P-1). There was a condition in the allotment letter that possession of the site will be offered on completion of development works of the area. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 25.11.2004 (P-2). It is claimed that immediately after taking over possession of the plot, entire amount was paid and a No Due Certificate was issued on 14.3.2005 (P-3). On 4.5.2006, the petitioner informed the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat about the change of his address and also supplied a copy of power of attorney executed in favour of Dilbag Singh son of Pal Singh (P-4). On 31.8.2005, the site plan submitted by the petitioner was sanctioned by respondent No. 2 (P-5). After construction upto plinth level, the site was inspected by the officials of HUDA, Panipat and the same was found to be in accordance with the sanctioned site plan. Accordingly a certificate to that effect was issued on 22.9.2005 (P-6). It has been claimed that further construction work beyond DPC level could not be carried on because of some matrimonial dispute in the family of the General Power of Attorney of the petitioner. After culmination of the dispute in the family of Dilbag Singh, GPA of the petitioner, when he went to the site in question to resume construction, it was informed by the neighbourer that the plot in question has been resumed due to non construction. The petitioner immediately approached respondent No. 2 and it was informed vide order dated 10.5.2006 that the plot has been resumed. This was done without affording any opportunity of being heard and without any intimation to the petitioner at his changed address.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondents preliminary objections have been taken that possession was offered to the petitioner on the date of allotment letter i.e. 2.5.2001 but he failed to take possession immediately and he came forward to take physical possession after a lapse of more than three years for which the respondents were not at fault. As per condition No. 17(1) of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to start construction within a period of one year from the date of offer of possession i.e. 2.5.2001. It has been asserted that as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the industrial unit must go into production after construction of 25% permissible covered area of the plot within a period of three years. There was condition No. 17(3) in the allotment letter that in case of failure to complete the said formalities, the plot is liable to be resumed. As the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment letter, therefore, respondents issued various notices under the Act to show cause as to why the plot in question should not be resumed. As the petitioner failed to complete the construction within the specified time, the allotment of the plot was rightly cancelled and plot was accordingly resumed. In reply to para 2 of the petition, it is submitted that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority had passed the impugned orders after affording full opportunities to the petitioner. In reply to para 6 of the petition, it is submitted that the events mentioned therein pertains to his personal and social life which in any way have no connection/concern with the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from his obligation to construct the plot within the specified time. It is also stated that the petitioner was called for personal hearing by respondent No. 2 but he failed to appear personally. The notices issued through registered post were received back undelivered.