KANTA DEVI BUDHIRAJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of highest bid of Rs. 15,75,000/ - given by them in the open auction held by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA"), commercial site No. 29, Sector 11, Panchkula was jointly allotted to Smt. Madhu Gupta, Santosh Gupta, Rita Gupta, Satish Kumar, Satwant and Akshey Kumar subject to the conditions stipulated in the letter of allotment Annexure P -1 dated 5.10.1987 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No. 3) 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 1978 Regulations). Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 23 of the letter of allotment read as under :

(2.) AFTER about two years of the auction of site, respondent No. 3 issued notices to the allottees under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requiring them to deposit the amount of instalments which had become payable in accordance with the schedule of payment specified in clause 23 of the letter of allotment but they failed to pay the amount due to the HUDA. Instead, they submitted representation dated 22.6.1992 (Annexure -P.3) through Shri Tarsem Jindal, General Power of Attorney asserting therein that interest only @ 10% can be recovered from them from the date on which possession of the site was given but they failed to evoke any favourable response from respondent No. 3. After considering the same respondent No. 3 passed order dated 1.9.1992 for resumption of the site by observing as under :

(3.) THIS did not satisfy the allottees who through present General Power of Attorney -Smt. Kanta Devi Budhiraja, filed revision petition before the Government under Section 30(2) of the Act with the prayer that the order by the Appellate Authority may be quashed. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department (hereinafter described as the revisional authority) dismissed the revision petition of the allottees by making the following observations :