Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA'), respondent in this regular second appeal, had allotted to Pran Nath Sikri, Asha Rani Sikri, Sunil Kumar and Esha Sikri, defendants No.3 to 6 in the main suit, premises consisting of a booth bearing No.35 situated in Sector 15, Panchkula, regarding which allotment letter was duly issued wherein terms and conditions of the allotment were spelled out. The plaintiff Surinder claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s Haryana Departmental Store and claiming to be a tenant in this booth has sought to challenge through instant suit for declaration the orders passed by HUDA whereby allotment of the booth was cancelled and the same was ordered to be resumed. The plaintiff challenged the same through the instant suit challenging the very legality of the orders of resumption as well as eviction from the booth in question and charging of interest on the 1 of 11 delayed payment being installments of the sale price. The defendants, besides taking usual preliminary objections as to lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the plaintiff having no locus standi to challenge the order as the owner has not come forward claiming further that HUDA has initiated action fully in accordance with law and the provisions of The Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (in short, 'HUDA Act') and that before passing resumption orders they had issued notice under Section 17(1), 17(2), 17(3) & 17 (4) as well as special opportunity too was afforded to the owners but they failed to make payment of the outstanding amount in respect of the premises in question and hence the premises stood resumed.

The next argument raised by the two sides revolves around the very penal interest that the appellants claim HUDA has charged upon non-payment of dues. It is not displaced by learned counsel for the appellants during his arguments that full and final payment in respect of this unit, which is of commercial nature, has not been made and by virtue of Section 16 of the HUDA Act, the authorities are well within their rights, after giving and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, to impose penalty upon the defaulter which can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. More so, it is the allottee who is aggrieved over it and not his tenant and whose locus standi to challenge the same certainly is questionable. Furthermore, in case of delayed/non-payment of the dues by virtue of Section 15 of the HUDA Act, the authority is well within its right to recover the entire money together with the interest and other amount so found due.

Provided that the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, shall not pass an order under this section without hearing the parties."

In the present case, upon allotment of the booth, the owners/allottees were issued due notices from time to time calling upon 8 of 11 them to make the payment so due from time to time but they failed to do so and therefore, a natural consequence ensues as to the cancellation of allotment leading to resumption of the premises. Though, under the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, option of filing appeals against allotment and resumption have been made, but the allottee has failed to get any relief and as has been observed in the impugned findings of the Court below, that the allottee had filed appeals under Section 20 of the HUDA Act and challenging eviction order dated 18.12.2000 and at that point of time, the authorities had given an offer to pay Rs.5.00 lacs within 15 days and conditional order was passed that if the payment was made within time then booth shall stand restored and in case the amount was not paid then the appeal would be treated as rejected. In spite of that, learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfy the Court how the appellants have availed off this special concession so meted out to them by the authorities as a sympathetic and lenient gesture. Since the defendant HUDA has duly proved service of notices under Section 17 of the HUDA Act as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5, therefore by virtue of Section 50 of the HUDA Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Court and since the HUDA authorities have resumed the premises as the allottee has failed to make payment of balance amount of Rs.5.00 lacs in prescribed period and has not adhered to the special concession being meted out to him by the authorities as the HUDA through its competent authority though had given a sympathetic treatment, but the appellants have failed to perform their part by making good the payment so due and rather coming and 9 of 11 challenging the order of resumption before a Civil Court, certainly is barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 50 of the HUDA Act. The Court below has rightly drawn a conclusion that the plaintiffs have totally failed in their endeavour to prove that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and has rightly concluded in consonance with the records and the evidence that after due service of notice and opportunity of fair hearing, the impugned orders have been passed.

Though on behalf of the appellants, reliance is sought to be placed on ratios of our own High Court in 'Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Sat Pal and others' (RSA 2879 of 2009 decided on 05.02.2018), 'Veena Rani v. State of Haryana and others' (CWP 19132 of 2014 decided on 10.02.2016); 'Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula v. Niranjan Singh' (RSA 1266 of 2001 decided on 30.10.2014); and 'Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Anita through Manjeet Singh' 2012(4) PLR 709; however, no benefit can be drawn out of these ratios on account of factual disparity from the case in hand. Even in another view of our own High Court laid down in 'Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Shishu Pal and others' (RSA 2934 of 2007 decided on 16.11.2010), similar proposition of law was laid down that Section 50 of the HUDA Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Court. Further it was held that where a conditional order has been passed by the authorities regarding setting aside the resumption order on conditional payment of outstanding amount with interest as per the HUDA policy, 10 of 11 even then the plaintiff is supposed to pay the amount even if compound interest is sought to be charged under its rules.