Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Aggarwal vs Financial Commissioner And Principal ... on 24 April, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
CWP No. 4471 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4471 of 2011
Date of Decision: 24.04.2012
Manish Aggarwal ........Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary .......Respondents
to Govt. of Haryana and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Baliyan, Advocate
for the respondent - HUDA.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.12.1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak resuming residential plot No. 852-P, Sector 13-17, Panipat measuring 209 sq. meters.
The order of resumption has been upheld by the Chief Administrator vide order dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-8) and by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary Govt. Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department vide order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P-
10).
CWP No. 4471 of 2011 2
The petitioner was allotted aforesaid residential plot vide letter of allotment dated 22.09.1993. The petitioner did not deposit the balance 75% of the sale consideration as per the schedule mentioned in the letter of allotment. Consequently, an order for resumption was passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat on 27.12.1999. It is mentioned that a show cause notice under Section 17(11) of the HUDA Act was served upon the petitioner. Subsequently another notice under Section 17(2) of the HUDA Act dated 13.8.1997 was served. Another notice was served on the petitioner providing an opportunity of personal appearance. A penalty of Rs.10945/- was imposed vide letter dated 6.4.1998. Since the amount was not deposited, a show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the HUDA Act was issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 17(4) was again issued but the petitioner did not appear before the Authority which led to the resumption of the plot.
Thereafter, on 17.1.2006 the power of attorney is executed by the petitioner in favour of one Satish Kumar which was registered at Mehgaon, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. On the basis of said power of attorney, an appeal was filed by the attorney before the Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak exercising the power of Chief Administrator, HUDA on 6.2.2006. It is the said appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator holding that the appeal is barred by limitation and also the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of allotment letter and has miserably failed to deposit the amount of installments and also to respond to the notices issued by the Estate officer, HUDA, Panipat.
The revision against the said appeal also remained CWP No. 4471 of 2011 3 unsuccessful. Still aggrieved against the said order, petitioner through his attorney has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner was not served with any notice as mentioned by the Estate Officer as none of the notices has been appended with the written statement. It is contended that petitioner has deposited substantial amount and that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount along with penalty but the petitioner should not be deprived of his residential property.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present writ petition.
The original allottee has not appeared before the Estate Officer when called upon to appear though the notices issued under the provisions of Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 were served upon the petitioner. Subsequently, after the resumption, an appeal is filed disputing the order of resumption. Though grounds of appeal filed by the appellant before the Chief Administrator, HUDA is not on record but in memorandum of revision it is stated that petitioner was not served with any notice. Whether any notice was served upon the allottee is a fact which is in the personal knowledge of the allottee and he is alone competent to assert such fact. It is so held in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512, that the attorney-holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge.
In view of the said fact, we do not find that there is any error apparent in the orders passed by the authorities, which may warrant CWP No. 4471 of 2011 4 interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) 24.04.2012 JUDGE reena/vimal