Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Achal Metal Industries vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 2 August, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 3365 of 1991
Date of Decision:-02.08.2013
M/s Achal Metal Industries, Rewari
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others
.....Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN.
Present:- Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral)
The petitioner was allotted two adjoining Industrial Plots No. 3 and 4, measuring 5794.14 square yards in Industrial Area, Rewari, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority-respondent herein, Vide allotment letter dated 2.1.1986 (Annexure P-4) at a tentative price of Rs.1,62,235.92/-.
As per the said allotment letter the petitioner was to raise the construction on the said site within two years of the allotment i.e. Uptil 2.1.1988. When the petitioner failed to raise construction within the time prescribed, a show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 was issued, and after hearing Saini Reema 2013.08.07 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 3365 of 1991 -2- the petitioner and finding its reply non-satisfactory respondent No. 3, ordered resumption of those plots vide order dated 14.11.1990 (Annexure P-18) along with forfeiture of 10% amount deposited by the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 2.1.1991 (Annexure P-19).
Against the aforesaid two orders the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in the year 1991. While admitting this writ petition on March 4, 1991, status-quo with regard to possession was ordered.
During the pendency of this writ petition, the HUDA has changed its policy with regard to construction on residential/commercial plots beyond the stipulated period of two years and as per the latest policy notified on 12.4.2013, there is no upper limit of time within which a allottee is required to complete the minimum required construction. In Clause (vi) of the said policy it has been specifically mentioned that the policy shall be applicable to all the cases where resumption orders have been passed due to non construction and the litigation is pending before any Forum. It has been further mentioned that in such cases, the Estate Officer shall inform the Court/Authority where the appeal of former allottee against the resumption order is pending, so that the said Court/Authority may dispose of the appeal in terms of the new extension policy.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contents of the aforesaid policy as well as the entitlement of the petitioner to be considered under the said policy as the case of the petitioner is C.W.P. No. 3365 of 1991 -3- pending in this Court since 1991.
In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said policy and regularize the non-construction by the petitioner by charging the extension fee according to the said policy, and on making the entire payment the resumption order shall be recalled.
Disposed of accordingly.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
02.08.2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
reema JUDGE