Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seoti Devi vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 10 September, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 10690 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10690 of 2011
Date of Decision: 10.09.2012
Seoti Devi ..... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority
and another ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Ms. Sonia Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate,
for Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
Challenge in this petition is to an order of resumption dated 18.11.2010 (P-6) of a plot measuring 420 sq. mtrs. bearing No.32, Sector- 21, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The resumption order has been passed by forfeiting 10% of the consideration money together with interest and other dues, if any. The impugned order has been passed after issuing show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (the ' HUDA Act' for short) for non-construction of building. Condition No.18 of the allotment letter issued on 21.07.1987 required construction to be completed within two years from the date of offer of possession after getting the plan of the proposed residential building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the erection of buildings. Condition No.18 is based on CWP No. 10690 of 2011 -2- Regulation 17 framed under the HUDA Act, 1977 which provides that a transferee or a lessee shall complete the construction within two years. It is not disputed that possession of the plot was offered on 19.10.1992 and, therefore, the construction ought to have been completed up to the permissible limit before 18.10.1994. HUDA framed an extension policy under the HUDA Act, 1977 which provided for a further period of 13 years to construct, therefore, the period of 15 years including the two initial years also expired on 18.10.2007 but the petitioner made no effort to raise construction. In the meantime, a fresh policy dated 02.07.2007 was framed by HUDA granting benefit of extension to allottees in cases, where the calendar year 2007 was the 15th year. Such allottees would be allowed to get the building plans approved and be required to complete at least the minimum construction required on the plots and apply for occupation certificate by or on 31.12.2008 on payment of prescribed extension fee. Even then the petitioner failed to raise construction. This has resulted in the passing of the impugned order of resumption by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula dated 18.11.2010 against which the petitioner carried an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula which has been rejected by order dated 25.05.2011. The reason given for non-construction is that the petitioner had suffered from prolonged sickness and had to consult doctors at nearby towns; that she was a 70 year old widow having lost her eldest son four years ago. She suffered impaired hearing and remains almost bed ridden and cannot move about easily. In these premises, the petitioner approached this Court for setting aside of the resumption and appellate order.
CWP No. 10690 of 2011-3-
On notice of motion having been issued, the respondent-HUDA has filed a written statement justifying action taken under Section 17(4) of the HUDA Act of resumption for non-construction since the date of offer of possession on 19.10.1992 there remains failure to carry out the construction on the plot. For this reliance has been placed on Condition No.18 of the allotment letter and Regulation 17 of the Regulations. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable even to take benefit of the policy dated 29.01.2007 and 02.07.2007 duly notified to the public targetted for compliance for carrying out constructions on the vacant plots up to the permissible limit to save the plot for resumption.
On 25.07.2012, in order to test the bon fides of the petitioner through her son Maggar Lal who was present in Court, this Court passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from Maggar Lal who is son of the petitioner states that petitioner, her son Maggar Lal and all legal heirs including legatees will not sell the plot in question for five years if the same is restored and will not create any encumbrance in any manner and that they will not execute any General Power of Attorney and also complete the construction within one year.
Mr. Bansal is directed to produce the record of the plot. List on 30.07.2012."
This order was passed after the matter was adjourned for a brief moment for Ms. Sonia Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions from the petitioner and her son Maggar Lal according to the proposed order. It was after seeking instructions from her client and her son present in Court that the undertaking recorded in the order dated 25.07.2012 CWP No. 10690 of 2011 -4- was made a part of the judicial order.
When the matter came up before this Bench on 30.07.2012 Mr. Manish Bansal, learned counsel appearing for respondent HUDA revealed that the petitioner in fact had been allotted another plot in Ambala by HUDA which also stood resumed for non-construction and appeal against the order of resumption was pending before the Appellate Authority.
In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to obtain fresh instructions from her client as to which plot, they would like to retain for the residence of the widowed petitioner. We were informed that Maggar Lal is a Government servant posted in the Excise & Taxation Department. The matter was consequently posted for 27.08.2012 on which date learned counsel for the petitioner sought further time to get instructions in terms of the previous order. Today, at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner would not surrender her rights on either of the plots; one at Panchkula and the other at Ambala both being HUDA allotments and that a decision be rendered on merits in the present matter.
Faced with the above and after hearing learned counsel on both sides at length, this Court is of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in either the resumption order or in the appellate order declining the relief to the petitioner. The plot was allotted on 21.07.1987 for a tentative price of Rs.1,18,650/-. The possession was offered indisputably as long ago as on 19.10.1992. The construction ought to have been carried out by 18.10.1994 in terms of Condition No.18. It could thereafter have been carried out till 18.10.2007 in terms of the relaxation granted by the CWP No. 10690 of 2011 -5- extension policy made by HUDA providing 13 years over and above the first two years. The petitioner failed to avail the benefit of further concession of construction up to 31.12.2008 as well on payment of extension fee. Instead of complying with the order, the petitioner sat back and set up a frivolous defence of illness as cause for non-construction. In the petition, there is no disclosure of allotment in Ambala through HUDA.
This Court was given an undertaking by the petitioner recorded in the order dated 25.07.2012 but she has chosen to back out. The purpose of such allotments by agencies like HUDA are not for unjust enrichment or speculation. The conduct of the petitioner's son Maggar Lal in Court leads us to believe that the petitioner wants to be richer by two plots both of which stand resumed for non-construction and to destroy the purpose for which the undertaking was given that neither the petitioner nor her son Maggar Lal and their legal heirs and representatives including legatees would sell the plot in question for five years if the same is restored nor execute any General Power of Attorney and that they would complete the construction within one year thereof but this was not found fit by the petitioner. The undertaking was given before us by Maggar Lal son of the petitioner and being a Government servant, we would expect that he would stand by his word and not mislead the Court.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in dismissing this writ petition and affirming the orders of resumption and the Appellate Authority.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
10.09.2012
manju