Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumitra Jain vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 1 October, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 15184 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 1.10.2012
Sumitra Jain
... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik. Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.
Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 14005 of 2012 Civil Misc. Application is allowed.
Exemption is granted from filing of certified copies of documents (Annexures P12 to P17).
Civil Misc. No. 14006 of 2012 Civil Misc. Application is allowed.
Replication along with documents (Annexures P12 to P17) is taken on record.
Civil Writ Petition No. 15184 of 2011 This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 16.1.2012 (P6) passed by respondent No.2, whereby resumption of Booth Site No. 170, Sector 31-32A, Gurgaon was Civil Writ Petition No. 15184 of 2011 (O&M) 2 ordered.
It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was allotted the above said booth site on 27.2.1996 (P1) against a total price of ` 11,56,000. At the time of auction, 10% of the sale consideration was deposited and further 15% was to be paid within 30 days from the date of acceptance of the bid. There is no dispute that the said amount was also deposited by the petitioner. Regarding payment of rest of the sale consideration, the following conditions were imposed in the allotment letter (P1):-
"5. The balance amount i.e. Rs. 862500/- of the above price of the plot can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in 10 half yearly. The first instalment will fall due after the expiry of six months of the date of issuance of this letter. Each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 15% interest on the remaining amount. The interest, shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession.
6. The possession of the site will be offered to you on completion of the development works in the area."
It was further stipulated that in case of delay in making the payment through instalments, interest, at the rate of 18% per annum shall be charged for the delayed payment. It has also come on record that offer of possession of the booth in question was made to the petitioner on 27.2.1996. It appears that with a view to delay the payment, letter dated 24.9.1998 (P3) was written by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 stating therein that she was not duty bound to make payment of the sale Civil Writ Petition No. 15184 of 2011 (O&M) 3 consideration of the booth because no development has been made at the spot where the site is situated. Again a letter, so stating, was written on 14.10.1998. It is also on record that taking note of non-payment of the amount of the instalments, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), however, the petitioner did not even bother to file reply thereto and also failed to appear before respondent No.2 on the date fixed therein. Thereafter, the plot was ordered to be resumed vide order dated 16.1.2002 (P6).
In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner had filed an appeal on 25.2.2002 (P12), against the above order, which was dismissed in default on 11.2.2005 (P14).
It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that unless the development work is completed at the site by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is not obliged to pay the instalments. We feel that the stand taken by the petitioner is totally unreasonable and unjustified. The terms & conditions of allotment letter makes it very clear that after making payment of ` 1,72,500 towards 25% of the price of the plot, balance amount of ` 8,62,500 was to be paid without interest within 60 days or with interest in ten half yearly instalments. The first instalment was to be paid after the expiry of six months of the date of issuance of letter of allotment. Against each instalment, interest was to be paid at the rate of 15% on the balance amount. It is further stated that the interest shall accrue from the date of offer of possession.
In the present case, the possession was offered to the Civil Writ Petition No. 15184 of 2011 (O&M) 4 petitioner on 29.7.1996. As per terms & conditions of the allotment letter, the payment of balance sale consideration was not dependent upon completion of development work. Interest was to accrue after possession. So, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to deposit the amount towards first instalment and so on till payment of the whole of the amount, however, nothing was done. The resumption order was passed, it was challenged in an appeal by the petitioner. The appeal was not pursued and it was dismissed in default. The department was dragged into a litigation before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon. Even during pendency of this writ petition, at no point of time, offer was made to pay the balance amount of price of the plot.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner that unless the development work is completed at the spot, the petitioner is not bound to make payment of the instalments, is ill-founded and is not supported from the documents on record. It has been said by the Supreme Court in its order dated 12.8.2011 passed in Satpal v. Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors. (S.L.P. (Civil) No.12589 of 2011, decided on 12.8.2011) that "in our view, the lower appellate Court had gravely erred in allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directing restoration of the booth site which had been resumed on account of continuous default by the petitioner in making payment of the installments and the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the appellate decree because the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to show that he had not violated the conditions of allotment of that he had not Civil Writ Petition No. 15184 of 2011 (O&M) 5 defaulted in payment of the installments of price."
Similarly, in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Another v. Raj Pal (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 504, the Supreme Court has held that the allottee cannot postpone the payment of instalment merely on a ground that some of the amenities were not ready. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Admn. v. Amarjeet Singh (2009)4) Supreme Court Cases 660.
In view of above, no case is made out to cause interference in the present case.
Dismissed.
$ (Jasbir Singh) Judge $ (Rameshwar Singh Malik) Judge October 1, 2012 "DK"