Punjab-Haryana High Court
Poonam Arora vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 20 March, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N.Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 20.3.2012
CWP No. 1120 of 2010
Poonam Arora ......Petitioner
vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .....Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: - Mr. O.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J Challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 3.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of allotment of Plot No. 544-N, Sector 37(II), Gurgaon.
Petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot vide the letter of allotment dated 14.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) at the total tentative price of Rs. 8,75,000/-. Petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,32,500/- within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of allotment. The said deposit of along with a sum of Rs. 86,250/-, the application money, would constitute 25% of the total tentative price. The balance 75 % of the tentative price could be paid either in 60 days without interest or in 5 half yearly installments with interest. The half yearly installment was Rs.1,32,500.
Admittedly, the petitioner has remitted the amount of Rs. 1,32,500/- after delay of 311 days i.e. on 25.6.2004. The same was not refunded to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has remitted the CWP No. 1120 of 2010 -2- said amount beyond the prescribed period. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was issued receipt of another amount of Rs. 1,32,500/- on 19.9.2005 and Rs. 2,65,000/- (Rs. 1,32,500/- vide two separate receipts) on 31.3.2006. It was thereafter in the year 2009, the petitioner was informed that the allotment of plot was cancelled on 24.9.2008 and the amount refunded vide the Cheque No. 120019 dated 20.5.2009.
In para 6 of the written statement, it has been averred that the amount of Rs.5,28,750/- was refunded to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 120019 dated 20.5.2009. An affidavit dated 10.2.2012 has also been filed on behalf of Shri Narrender Yadav, Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, wherein, it has been mentioned that Cheque No. 120019 dated 20.5.2009 for an amount of Rs. 5,28,750/- was sent to the petitoner but the same has not been encashed.
Petitioner has denied the receipt of the letter dated 24.9.2008 and the Cheque in the sum of Rs. 5,28,750/-. Petitioner submitted a representation on 21.10.2009 (Annexure P-9) disputing the cancellation but since no action was taken, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that on account of failure of the petitioner to deposit the balance 15% of the amount within 30 days, no concluded contract came into existence. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and ors, (2009) 4 SCC 369. It is contended that the Estate Officer has sought condonation of delay from the Administrator but since, no decision was received from the Administrator, the amount could not be refunded earlier in point of time. CWP No. 1120 of 2010 -3-
Petitioner referred to an information received by her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Annexure P-11). The petitioner has been informed by the Estate officer-I, HUDA, Gurgaon on 7.2.2011 that Cheque No. 120019 dated 20.5.2009 amounting to Rs. 5,28,750/- was sent to Smt. Poonam Arora but the said amount has not been encashed. Petitioner was also informed that Cheque was issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce and the said Cheque is unpaid as per the report of the Oriental Bank of commerce, Sector 14, Gurgaon. Petitioner also sought information from the Oriental Bank of Commerce in respect of the aforesaid Cheque. Petitioner has been informed that the Cheque in the sum of Rs. 29,796/- has been encashed through clearing by Punjab National Bank, CMS Hub, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the no concluded contract came in to existence. The facts of the case prove otherwise. Not only the initial amount was not returned soon after the same was received but also the respondents accepted three more half yearly installments. The conduct of the respondents is that of implied condonation of delay in remitting the amount. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents have accepted the payments from the year 2004 to 2006 without any demur but has taken wholly untrue stand of return of the amount, we find that the communication dated 3.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) is wholly unjustified and the same is therefore set aside.
The respondents shall communicate the balance amount payable by the petitioner within one month. The petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears including interest thereon within one month thereafter. CWP No. 1120 of 2010 -4-
We also find from the documents appended by the petitioner in the replication, that the respondents has taken a false defence that the amount of Rs. 5,28,750/- was returned to the petitioner. Such facts have been verified to be correct in the written statement by Shri Pushpinder Singh Chauhan, HCS, Estate Officer, HUDA Gurgaon and also by Shri Narrender Yadav, Estate Officer in his affidavit dated 10.2.2012.
Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, We deem it appropriate to issue notices to Shri Pushpinder Singh Chauhan, HCS, and to Shri Narrender Yadav, Estate Officers, HUDA, Gurgaon for 24.4.2012 to show cause as to why proceedings for perjury for making false averments in the written statement and in affidavit are not initiated against them.
To come up on 24.4.2012 for further proceedings.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 20.3.2012 preeti