Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarvjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 30 May, 2009
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16714 of 2008
Date of decision: May 30, 2009.
Sarvjeet Singh
...Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Shri Sidharath Batra, Advocate for respondent(s) No.3 & 4.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):
The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-3) and 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondents whereby plot No.432, Sector 4, Transport Nagar, Karnal, allotted on free- hold basis in an open auction, has been resumed due to non-deposit of 15% of the sale consideration within 30 days.
It may be noticed here that aggrieved at the resumption order, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the State Government which was conditionally allowed vide order dated 21.11.2006 and the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to deposit the outstanding amount as per the HUDA policy within 30 days. The outstanding dues were required to be conveyed to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. In this manner, the petitioner was required to deposit the said amount by 16.2.2007. The petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.11,48,000/- on 30.1.2007 and the balance amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited on 15.3.2007. It would, thus, be seen that even after depositing a major part of the sale consideration within time, the petitioner caused delay in depositing the balance amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. In such like a situation, should the resumption order be allowed to sustain and/or the allottee be burdened with penal and compound interest for the delayed payment, has been considered by this Court in CWP No.3563 of 2008, decided on February 19, 2009 (Manju Rani and others v. HUDA and another), holding as follows:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners, as directed by this Court, have deposited the balance amount and are further ready and willing to pay the additional demand, if any, to be raised by the respondents towards penal/compound interest or penalty, the writ petition is allowed. The resumption of Booth No.20, Sector-6, Karnal, S.C.O No. 85, Mahila Ashram Complex, Karnal and S.C.F No. 94, Sector
- 6, Karnal, is set side and the same are directed to be restored in petitioners' favour. However, the respondents are entitled to levy penal/compound interest upon the petitioners for the period after passing of the Appellate Orders till the actual payment of balance amount and the same shall then be communicated to the petitioners at the earliest, who shall then be liable to pay the same within one month from the date of receipt of the said communication."
For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Since the respondents have already refunded the entire amount deposited by the petitioner, the Estate Officer, HUDA at Kanal may inform the petitioner the total arrears as on date along with penal and compound interest. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the penal and compound interest on the delay payments. It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the details from the Estate Officer, Karnal failing which the resumption order shall attain finality.
Disposed of.
Dasti.
May 30, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge