Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Roop Singh And Ors vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 19 September, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:19.9.2012
CWP No. 23656 of 2011
Raj Roop Singh and ors ......Petitioners
vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority and ors .....Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: - Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for petitioners.
M/s Gitish Bhardwaj and Manish Bansal, Advocates for respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J The petitioners claim a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the shop-cum-flat (SCF), purchased in an open auction by M/s Sunil Kumar & Company.
The brief facts leading to said prayer is that in an open auction conducted on 10.4.1996, M/s Sunil Kumar & Company was the highest bidder for the purchase of SCF No. 122, Sector 19, Faridabad at a total cost of Rs. 24,50,000/-. An allotment letter was issued on the same date i.e. on 10.4.1996. The possession of the said plot was offered to M/s Sunil Kumar & Company on 30.9.1996. But at the time of actual possession, it was found that the area available is less than the plot size allotted. The building plans were submitted by M/s Sunil Kumar & Company in respect of CWP No. 23656 of 2011 -2- the plot, the possession of which was handed over to it but the same were not sanctioned.
The petitioners purchased the plot in question from M/s Sunil Kumar & Company. On the basis of the said purchase, re-allotment letter dated 13.7.1999 was issued to the petitioners, subject to payment of Rs. 20,83,800/-.
The petitioners disputed the claim of the said amount in an appeal before the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, exercising the powers of Chief Administrator. The appeal was accepted on 29.11.2000 (Annexure P-10). It was ordered that the extension fee will not be charged and that the interest on the installments be recalculated fresh on the remaining amount and that the penalty imposed by the respondent be waived off. Thereafter a show cause notice under Section 17(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 was issued on 8.6.2001, as to why a penalty of Rs. 2,77,339/- be not imposed as the petitioner has failed to pay the amount of Rs. 27,73,390/-. It was thereafter on 8.5.2002, the petitioners addressed a communication (Annexure P-13) seeking refund of the amount deposited by the petitioners and that they have no interest in SCF No. 122, Part-I, Sector 19, Faridabad.
The petitioners filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum Faridabad on or about 7.11.2002 disputing the refund of the said amount but the same was withdrawn on 21.10.2008 as it was stated that there are legal flaws and they may be permitted to withdraw the complaint to file fresh petition in a proper Court/Forum. Thereafter petitioners filed another complaint on 2.12.2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula. The said complaint was again withdrawn on 30.8.2011 (Annexure P-15) with liberty to CWP No. 23656 of 2011 -3- approach the Court of competent jurisdiction/Civil Court. It is thereafter the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the communication to the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad (Annexure P-13) was a letter in distress and out of frustrating conduct of the respondents in not handing over the possession of the plot but the same cannot be treated as a letter, intending to surrender the plot. Therefore, the said letter has been wrongly treated to be a letter of surrender of the plot.
We do not find any merit in the said argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is not an illiterate villager or that he was not aware of the technicalities of the law. He is a former member of the Indian Police Service. He knew what he is writing when he addressed the communication dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure P-13). Soon after the said letter, respondents have refunded the sum of Rs. 3,11,402/- as per the HUDA policy vide cheque No. 50615 dated 8.6.2002. The said amount has been encashed by the petitioners as well. There is no protest by the petitioners before the encashment of the cheque that the letter dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure P-13) is not with intention to surrender the plot.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the communication dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure P-13) is not the request of surrender of the plot. Since, the petitioners have surrendered plot, therefore, the petition has no merit. The petitioners cannot claim possession of the plot which has been surrendered.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 19.9.2012 preeti