Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Kumar And Another vs Estate Officer Urban Estate Panchkula ... on 18 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1993P&H303, AIR 1993 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 303, 1994 HRR 131, (1993) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 393, 1993 REVLR 2 62, (1993) 2 RRR 292, 1993 PUNJ LJ 334
ORDER
1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners Devinder Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Gupta have challenged the order of resumption of Industrial Plot No. 265, Industrial Area Phase I, Panchkula and forfeiture of Rs.3400/- out of the total amount of Rs. 16033.92 passed by the Estate Officer HUDA Panchkula, respondent No. 1 on August 17, 1980 (Annexure P11) and order of June 29, 1982 (Annexure P14) passed by the Administrator HUDA, Panchkula.
2. Plot No. 116 measuring 1/4 acre in Industrial Area Phase I, in the Urban Estate at Panchhkula was allotted to the petitioners at tentative sale price of Rs. 18I50/- vide letter No. 13482 dated 5-8-1975. Twenty per cent of the sale price was paid in advance whereas the balance 80 per cent was payable in 10 equated annual instalments with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum, each instalment inclusive of interest being of Rs. 2067.32 and the last instalment was payable in 1984. The petitioners had been paying the instalments regularly. The total amount of Rs. 16033.92 towards the sale price was deposited by the allottees prior to the filing of the present writ petition.
3. Vide letter of May 30, 1976 (Annexure P-2) of the first respondent the petitioners were informed that prior to the allotment of % acre plot No. 116 to them, it had already been allotted to M 's Dharam Vir Laxman Dass on August 5, 1974, and the said discrepancy came to the notice of the authorities on scrutinising the record of the office. The petitioners were, therefore, allotted 1/4 acre Industrial Plot No. 265 instead of Industrial plot No. 116, in the Industrial Area Phase I at Urban Estate, Panchkula, on the same terms and conditions. Then, vide memo of June 9, 1977 (Annexure P-3), the first respondent informed the petitioners that vide letter No. 13482 dated 5-8-1975 (Annexure P-1), they had been allotted Industrial Plot No. 191, and were required to complete the construction within three years, which they had failed to do. They were, therefore, called upon to show cause why an order of resumption of the site and forfeiture of whole amount paid or part thereof, be not made. The petitioners then, vide letter of December 12, 1977, (Annexure P-4), pointed out to the first respondent that the notice (Annexure P-3), talked of Plot No. 191, whereas they had been allotted Plot No. 116, vide allotment-letter of August 5, 1975, and, therefore, the said notice may be withdrawn. No reply, whatsoever, was received by the petitioners to the said letter (Annexure P-4).
4. Subsequently, respondent No. 1, vide his letter No. 4427 dated March 14, 1980, (Annexure-P-5) issued another Show Cause Notice under S. 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short "HUDA Act") thereby correcting the plot No. 191 to 165 and asking the petitioners to show cause as to why an order of resumption of the said plot and forfeiture of the amount paid or part thereof be not made as they had failed to complete the construction within 3 years which expired on 5th August 1977. Vide letter (Annexure P-6) the petitioners submitted a reply to the said Show Cause Notice. After affording personal hearing to the petitioners which was duly availed of by them, the impugned order, (Annexure P-11) was passed by respondent No. 1.
5. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of appeal, copy whereof is Annexure P-12 on the record. It was heard and dismissed by the Administrator, HUDA Panchkula, respondent No. 2, vide his judgment dated 29th June, 1982. These two orders are sought to be quashed by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents has almost admitted the factual position and the only plea taken by the respondents is that the petitioners were allotted Industrial Plot No. 116 on 5-8-1973. On the scrutiny of the record it was found that plot No. 116 stood allotted to another person. The petitioners were therefore, allotted plot No. 265 on the same terms and conditions contained vide allotment letter dated 5-8-1974. The petitioners were required to raise the construction within two years from the date of offer of possession according to Regulation 17 of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land & Buildings) Regulation, 1978 (for short the 'Regulations'). The petitioners were offered possession of the plot on 20-5-1976 and they had to complete the construction within two years i.e. up to 19-5-1978. Since they failed to raise the construction within stipulated period without valid reasons, show cause notice was served upon them on 24-2-1981 and they were afforded personal hearing also. Further stand of the respondents is that the plea raised by the petitioners that in spite of their enquiry vide letter (Annexure P-4) they had not been intimated as to which of the plot was allotted to them, was baseless. It is clear that plot No. 265 was allotted to them which they had accepted. Another fact that the petitioners had submitted plans to the Estate Officer, Panchkula, respondent No. 1, in April 1982 along with deposit of Rs. 200/ - plus Rs. 423/ -as fee for sanction of the building plans and the security and that the said plans have not yet been sanctioned has also been admitted in para 15 of the written statement.
7. Obviously, the keenness and zealous-
ness on the party of the Huda authorities to ensure speedy construction in the satellite city of Panchkula have been the circumstances compelling them to order resumption of the plot, but one salient feature of the whole process has been lost sight of. After originally having allotted plot No. 116 vide letter dated 5-8-1975 (Annexure P-1) and vide its cause No. 10 having called upon the allottees to complete the construction of building within three years from the date of issue of the said letter, the authorities have themselves confused the whole matter by issuing letter dated 20-5-1976 (Annexure P-2) thereby intimating the allottees that instead of plot No. 116, they have been allotted plot No. 265 and then again vide letter dated 9-6-1977 (Annexure P-3) by issuing Show Cause Notice for not having raised construction on plot No. 191 allotted to them vide letter dated 5-8-1975 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners submitted a reply (Annexure P-4) to the said Show Cause Notice and sought clarification as to which plot had actually been allotted to them. The authorities had also been asked to supply a copy of the lay out plan of Industrial Estate, so that they may apply for taking over the possession of the plot actually allotted to them and start construction, but the authorities kept silent and after a long period of about two and a quarter years issued another Show Cause Notice on 14-3-1980 (Annexure P-5) where in again they confused the matter saying that the petitioners had been allotted plot No. 265 vide letter No. 13482 dated 5-8-1975 (Annexure P-l) although vide the said letter plot No. 116 had been allotted. This show cause notice was replied by the petitioners again asking the authorities to intimate the actual plot No. allotted to them. Finding the said reply unsatisfactory, the Estate Officer vide letter dated 19-6-1980 (Annexure P-7) afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but on the day fixed, the petitioner Devinder Kumar could not be heard because the Estate Officer was not available. Thereafter the possession of plot No. 265 was delivered to the petitioners on 6-3-1981 vide Annexure P-9.
8. Order of resumption (Annexure P-l 1) also does not contain clear facts. To start with, it has been mentioned therein that Plot No. 265 was allotted to the petitioners vide Memo No. 13482 dated 5-8-1975 (Annexure P-1) but perusal of the said document shows that plot No. 116 and not plot No. 265 was allotted through this communication. Then it is mentioned in Annexure P-11 that offer of possession was made vide Memo No. 11824 dated 3-2-1976. There could not be such an offer in view of the fact that plot No. 265 was for the first time allotted to the petitioners vide letter No. 18287 dated 20-5-1976 (Annexure P-2). The whole of the matter is thus jumbled up and in spite of the petitioners having asked twice vide letters Annexures P-4 and P-6 correct plot No. was not intimated to them by the authorities nor offer of possession of plot No. 265 could be made to them on 3-2-1976 as mentioned in Annexure P-l 1.
9. In any case now since the petitioner Devinder Kumar has shown keenness and anxiety on his part to undertake the construction and complete the same within this year, I think it is a fit case in which the order of resumption should be set aside and one last opportunity be given to him for completing the construction. In this approach I am fortified by the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Puri v. The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, (1982) 84 PLR 388 : (AIR 1982 P & H 301 (FB)) wherein it has been held that there is no manner of doubt that resumption in the sense of a divestiture of title would be the ultimate civil sanction in the armoury of the authorities to effectuate the twin purpose of a regulated and planned development as also the expeditious creation of a new city in the State of Haryana. It bears repetition that the power of resumption is the ultimate civil sanction and must, therefore, be a weapon of last resort. Inevitably, it should be used with great caution and circumspection.
10. The above said judgment was followed by a single Bench of this Court in Shri Brij Bhushan v. The Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, 1987 (1) PLR 598.
11. In the circumstances, the order of resumption (Annexure P-11) as also the under (Annexure P-14) by which the appeal of the petitioners was rejected by the Appellate Authority are set aside being contrary to the objects and purposes of the Act. In order to ensure construction of the building by the petitioners, the Estate Officer, HUDA Panchkula may consider the construction plans submitted by the petitioners and sanction them according to the rules as expedi-, tiously as possible preferably within two months from today. The petitioners shall start construction within a fornight of the communication of the Sanction of the plans to them and shall complete the same before 31st of December 1993. Petitioners Devinder Kumar has undertaken that if he fails to perform his part of the undertaking and the construction of the building is not completed within the stipulated period then the order of resumption would become final. The Estate Officer, Panchkula respondents No. 1 will also intimate the petitioners the amount due, if any, towards the sale price etc. and they would deposit the same within a period of one month from the receipt of such an intimation.
12. Subject to these conditions the writ petition stands disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
13. Petition dismissed.