Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The parties i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhalla i.e. the original allottee, Sh. Rajpal i.e. GPA of the original allottee and Smt. Veena Rani i.e. the present allottee, were heard at length by Sh. Y.S. Malik, I.A.S and vide note dated 05.10.2013, it was recommended that the Revision Petition filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhalla through GPA may be dismissed mainly on the grounds that execution of a GPA in respect of a property, after it had ceased to belong to the allottee, is nothing short of a fraud. Both the allottee and the GPA have connived in taking this fraudulent act to its fruition. The GPA in this case has been executed after more than 4 years of resumption of plot. The said recommendations of Sh.

Y.S. Malik, I.A.S have been accepted by the competent authority on 07.03.2014.

7. Therefore, exercising the powers under Section 30(2) of the HUDA Act, 1977, the Revision Petition filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhalla through GPA Sh. Rajpal is hereby dismissed and consequently, the resumption order dated 17.01.2001 is upheld. Since, Smt. Veena Rani is the bonafide purchaser of the plot in question, she needs to be reimbursed the amount she had paid to the seller i.e. ` 30,80,000/-. Therefore, it has been decided that the Estate Officer, Bhiwani would take over the possession of the plot which may be put to auction and out of the auction proceeds, the investments of Smt. Veena Rani may be refunded without deductions subject to the conditions that she assigns all her rights to claim damages and seek refund of unlawful gain from Sh. Rajpal, GPA to the Government/HUDA.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

On a due and thoughtful consideration of the matter in issue, we are of the considered view that the order being assailed is palpably erroneous and is thus liable to be set aside for the reasons that are being recorded hereinafter.

Ex facie, the short ground upon which respondent No.1 reviewed the order dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P5), rendered by the revisional authority, is; "that execution of a GPA in respect of a property, after it had ceased to belong to the allottee, is nothing short of a fraud. Both the allottee and the GPA have connived in taking this fraudulent act to its fruition." Concededly, the site in question was allotted to Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhalla (allottee). And he even deposited 25% of the price of the plot. Resultantly, he acquired interest in the allotted site. No doubt, as a result of cancellation of allotment Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhalla ceased to be an allottee but he did not cease to have a right to assail the order of resumption. Particularly, when the Statute itself i.e. HUDA Act, 1977, provides him a right of an appeal and then a revision before the designated authorities. That being so, he could always assail the order of resumption or question its validity, notwithstanding whether his claim contained any merit or was devoid thereof. It was to protect and enforce that right that he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Rajpal. In law, he could either file an appeal himself or through his duly constituted attorney. If, post resumption, execution of the GPA to avail the remedy, if admissible in law, constitutes fraud or is impermissible, it would imply that allottee even loses the right to file appeal or question the validity of the order of resumption. Something, which is apparently misconceived and defies logic. Thus, cannot be sustained. Even the learned State counsel expresses his inability to justify the reason that forms basis of the order being assailed. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. However, both are conspicuous, in the matter in hand, by their absence.

Likewise, the observation "Both the allottee and the GPA have connived in taking this fraudulent act to its fruition" suggests that perhaps the Government drew an impression that pursuant to some unholy nexus, the allottee sold his interest, though he was left with none, to the GPA holder. To set the records straight, we deem it necessary to reiterate that vide GPA dated 05.04.2005 (Annexure P11), Sh. Rajpal was constituted as attorney of the allottee. And, he was duly authorized to resort to appropriate measures for restoration of the resumed site. The position of law is settled that a power of attorney is only an instrument of convenience and hardly conveys any right, title or interest in an immoveable property unless otherwise specified or indicated. Further, we are reminded to point out that Sh. Rajpal (GPA holder) never claimed any right, title or interest in the site in question. He never propounded any sale agreement, will or power of attorney sale in his favour, which could be said to have been executed to circumvent the law. Nothing was brought, at least, on record to show that any consideration amount ever passed on from the GPA holder to the allottee. Of course, we would have viewed the matter from a different perspective, if the site was eventually transferred in the name of a GPA holder. But, such is not the case in the matter in hand. That being so, and before we proceed further, it would be expedient to refer to certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2012 AIR (SC) 206: