Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Singh vs The Financial Commissioner & Principal ... on 21 August, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kuldip Singh
CWP No. 13804 of 2014 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13804 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 21, 2014
Devinder Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of
Haryana and others.
....Respondents
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Raj K. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 6.6.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning & Urban Estates, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the resumption order of residential plot No. 1344, Sector 10, Ambala, measuring 1 kanal, was dismissed.
The above mentioned plot was allotted to the petitioner on 30.8.1991 for a sum of Rs.3,45,240/-. The possession of the plot was offered on 7.11.1996 but the petitioner failed to make payment of the outstanding dues. The plot was, thus, resumed on 10.7.2001. DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.21 11:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 13804 of 2014 (O&M) [2] The petitioner-allottee filed an appeal against the order of the resumption, which was dismissed on 16.11.2004, inter-alia, for the reason that there is delay of more than two years in filing of appeal and that the allottee has not paid any instalment after making payment of 15% of cost of the plot. The revision has been dismissed vide the impugned order, wherein, the argument that the allottee has not received any notice was found not sustainable when the notices were sent under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1977 (for short `the Act') through the registered post on the address given by him, which were never received back undelivered. It was also found that the Estate Officer was justified in imposing penalty and then resuming the plot because the allottee not only failed to pay the outstanding dues but defaulted after service of the notices. It is also noticed that the allottee executed a General Power of Attorney on 8.11.2010 i.e. after 9 years of the passing of the resumption order. The learned Financial Commissioner found that the Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner is to manage the affairs of the plot but the same is beyond common understanding when the plot had already vested with HUDA after passing of the resumption order in the year 2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the address of the petitioner is `Devinder Singh, resident of village Rampur Nandiali, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib, District Patiala', whereas notices under Section 17 of the Act, were issued at the address `Village and post office of Rampur, District Fatehgarh Sahib', which is not the complete address. Thus, the notices could not be said to be delivered to the petitioner.
DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.21 11:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 13804 of 2014 (O&M) [3] We do not find any merit in the arguments. It is not an argument before Administrator in the memo of appeal (Annexure P.3) that the address mentioned in the notices was not complete. It is stated that the notices were never received by the petitioner and that he could not deposit the amount due to unavoidable family circumstances. In the revision petition, again no grievance was made that the address was not complete. It was again asserted that the notices were not served. It may be mentioned that in the memo of appeal as well as in the memo of revision, the petitioner has disclosed his address as that of village Rampur alone. It could not be disputed that the village and post office Rampur Nandiali, now falls in Fatehgarh Sahib. Still further, we find that if the address was incomplete, the notices would have been returned undelivered but the fact remains that the registered letters sent at the address of village Rampur, had not been received back. Therefore, the presumption is of due service of the notices in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Still further, the petitioner appointed Shri Sudesh Jain as his attorney on 8.11.2010 i.e. after the appeal was dismissed in the year 2004. The revision against the order of the Administrator was filed on 6.5.2005 but was dismissed finally by the Financial Commissioner and the Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana on 31.5.2011. Thereafter, in terms of the order passed by this Court, the matter was re-examined by the Financial Commissioner and the resumption upheld.
We do not find any illegality in the order of resumption. The petitioner has failed to pay any of the instalments after making payment of the initial 25% of the amount. The residential plots are DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.21 11:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 13804 of 2014 (O&M) [4] allotted for the purpose of residence and not for the speculative profit to be made at the later point of time. The fact that the petitioner has not paid instalments for a long period and had executed Power of Attorney after the resumption of the plot, speaks volumes of the conduct of the petitioner that he is not bona-fide intended user of the plot.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE [ KULDIP SINGH ] JUDGE August 21, 2014 ds DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.21 11:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh