(1.) ON the basis of highest bid of Rs. 1,94,500/- given by him in the auction held by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter described as HUDA), Booth site No. 27, Sector 19-II, Faridabad was allotted to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the allotment letter Annexure P.1 dated 10.7.1989 issued in Form 'CC' prescribed under Regulation 6(2) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 23 of the allotment letter reads as under :-
(2.) IN terms of clauses 2 and 4 reproduced above, the petitioner was required to pay 25% of the price including 10% deposited at the time of bid within 30 days from the date of issue of letter dated 17.8.1989. He was also required to pay balance amount i.e. 1,45,875/- in lumpsum without interest within 60 days or in 10 half yearly instalments with interest at the rate of 10% which was to accrue from the date of offer of possession. It, however, appeals that neither the competent authority of HUDA gave offer of possession of the site of the petitioner after he had fulfilled the requirement of paying 25% of the price nor he paid the instalments in accordance with clause 5 read with clause 23 of the allotment letter. He deposited Rs. 43,033/- vide draft dated 28.1.1992 and Rs. 1,42,953/- vide pay order dated 23.5.1996. While tendering the pay order, he also made a written request for delivery of possession. After about 3 months, he wrote letter Annexure P.4 dated 18.8.1998 with the request that audited statement of account be made available to him for payment of the remaining dues. At the same time, he reiterated the request for possession. On 27.8.1998 under Section 17(1) and (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (sic) requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,50,414/- and also to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 25,041.40 i.e. 10% of the amount be not imposed upon him. In terms of that notice, the petitioner was to appear before respondent No. 2 either personally or through his representative. However, 3 weeks before the due date, respondent No. 2 passed order Annexure P.7 dated 3.9.1998 and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,041.40 upon the petitioner who was asked to pay Rs. 2,75,455/-. The order was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad (exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator, HUDA). Vide Annexure P.12 dated 27.10.1998, he filed additional grounds of appeals. Ms. G. Anupama, the then Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, dismissed the appeal by order Annexure P.13 dated 20.1.1999. Immediately thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 20.1.1999 to the petitioner to show cause as to why action may not be taken against him under Section 17(4) of the Act.
(3.) THE written statement filed by the respondents is a classic example of confused state of affair prevailing in the functioning of HUDA so far as the Court cases are concerned. Instead of placing the facts in a correct perspective, the respondents have made contradictory statements on the issue of delivery of possession. In paragraphs 4, 16 and 21 of the written statement, they have averred that possession of the site has to be offered to the petitioner immediately on his depositing 15% price in addition to the 10% price already deposited at the time of auction. In the same breath, they have said that it was the petitioner's duty to have applied for taking delivery of possession which he failed to do up to 23.5.1996. In paragraph 9 it has been averred that a large sum was due from the petitioner and, therefore, before delivering possession he was called upon to pay the balance amount. Moreover, the respondents have not explained as to why respondent No. 2 passed order dated 3.9.1998 under Section 17(2) of the Act before 24.9.1998 which was fixed as the date for the petitioner's appearance.