HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ZUARI INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARYANA Urban Development Authority (in short HUDA), through its Estate Officer at Gurgaon, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 7.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, ordering resumption of a plot to the respondent (petitioner), which it had earlier surrendered to the appellant. Some admitted facts :

(2.) RESPONDENT (petitioner) was allotted a plot bearing No. 8, measuring 8000 sq. mts. in Sector 32, Gurgaon on 27.6.1995 (P-5). Vide letter dated 17.7.1997 (P-8), it was intimated to the respondent, by the appellant that some part of the plot allotted to it is under litigation, however, if it wished to take possession of the remaining clear area, it may do so by visiting the office of the appellant on any working day. The said offer was accepted by the respondent and on 18.7.1997, possession of 8380 sq. mts. area in plot No. 8, Sector 32 was delivered to the respondent. In token of receipt, proceedings- note of taking possession, was signed by A.B. Kartik on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the respondent, of its own, vide letter dated 26.11.2001 (P- 19), offered to surrender the plot in question. In the said letter, it was mentioned that existence of the cremation ground on one side of the allotted plot will cause lot of nuisance and further that people from village Jharsa did not allow the respondent to complete construction at the site. It was further said that, had the existence of the cremation ground been brought to the notice of the respondent at the initial stage, it would not have opted to purchase the plot in question. It was further stated that in view of embargo imposed in the allotment letter, against the transfer of the plot, the respondent had opted to surrender the plot on refund of payment made to the appellant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the payment was made. It was further averred in the application that in case, the appellant failed to accept the request made by the respondent, it reserved its rights to institute legal proceedings to claim refund of the money paid and the amount spent on construction raised and damages etc. Prayer to surrender plot was reiterated by the respondent in its letter dated 16.12.2002 (P-20). Request was accepted and after deducting 10% of the amount paid, an amount of Rs. 2,10,54,314/- was refunded to the respondent in the year 2003, which fact is reflected in documents Annexures P-21 and P-22 on record of this case.