Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. K. Madan vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 3 June, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR400
JUDGMENT J.B. Garg, J.
1. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Madan, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings and order of the Chief Administratator Haryana Urban Development Authority Faridabad and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, resuming her residential plot.
2. Briefly, the facts as alleged are that Dr. (Mrs.) K Madan, the petitioner, was allotted plot No. 591 in Sector 7, Faridabad by the Estate Officer, Haryana, Urban Development Authority, Faridabad respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. E.O. /1966 dated 5.6.1965. The petitioner has made full payment in respect of the price of the plot. However, vide memo No. A-7-78/2364 dated 12.4.78 the plot has been resumed on account of non construction of the building within a period of three years as laid in Rule 14.
3. The petitioner has alleged that no notice was served regarding the cancellation of plot and respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order arbitrarily and it is also violative of principles of natural justice equity and good conscience. It has also been alleged that it has wrongly been mentioned in the impugned order Annexure P-2 that the petitioner was intimated regarding the cancellation of the plot on 12-4-78 and in fact no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The petitioner did try to approach respondent No. 2 but his appeal/revision was dismissed on the plea of limitation on 10 9.80.
4. The respondent filed a written statement wherein there is also a plea that the plot in question has been allotted to Shri Jatinder Pal was impleaded as respondent but he has not appeared despite service. The affidavit of the petitioner which contains a specific mention that even now the plot is lying vacant and there has been no construction has been placed on record
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sita Ram Gupta v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1992 P.L.J. 275, wherein it was observed that in such cases the order of resumption was not justified.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents could not contradict the factual position that even now the plot is lying un-constructed. It is not a case that the plot his been allotted to a third person and he has made a construction on the whole or a part thereof. The conclusion is that the petition succeeds and the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner shall pay or deposit the extension fee and now take up the construction and complete it within year.