Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) PUDA issued a show cause notice on 09.07.2009 for not remitting Ist installment to the petitioner. Since there was no response from the petitioner two more show cause notices were issued on 24.08.2009 and 09.10.2009. In fact on 09.10.2009 the petitioner was directed to be present before the concerned authority on 20.10.2009. Despite the aforesaid show cause notices, there was no response from the petitioner and having regard to such conduct, PUDA cancelled the allotment of subject commercial plot on 20.11.2009 (Annexure P2). Thereafter, on 04.12.2009, the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.3,05,64,463/- has been forfeited out of total deposit of Rs.6,95,73,000/-.

(g) Both the Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala and the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 05.05.2010 preferred revision petition before the revisional authority, who stayed the order of the appellate authority dated 05.05.2010. Consequently, the 4th respondent-Estate Officer implemented the order dated 20.11.2009. On 30.11.2010, revisional Authority allowed the revision petition of 4th respondent-Estate Officer, PUDA, while approving the order dated 20.11.2009 by which forfeited 10% for allotment price of the site while setting aside appellate authority's order dated 05.05.2010.

(9) Object of the above provision is to see that prospective auction do not indulge in speculative, unrealistic or unholy bids to oust the genuine and bonafide bidders. The forfeiture clause acts as a deterrent against those who intend to cheat or play fraud against PUDA in the matter of auction of public property. The scheme of the provision is thus to protect the right and interest of the PUDA in the matter of auctioned property where there is a breach of conditions imposed in respect of transfer of the land or building or both. It is a discretionary power assigned to the competent authority to forfeit maximum of 10% of the amount though to be exercised judiciously and to achieve the above illustrated object(s).

(10) It is undisputed that petitioner was a successful bidder in the auction of commercial property (Choti Bardari Site Kothi No. 40-D), Chank Site, Patiala. The petitioner had deposited 25% of the total value of the land. On the reduction of area in square yard from 5510.50 to 5214.230 square yards, revised order was issued i.e. petitioner was required to deposit 75% of the tentative price of site in 4 installments. The petitioner was given to pay the balance amount of 75% in 4 installments on 19.03.2009, 19.03.2010 and 19.03.2011 and 19.03.2012. The petitioner failed to pay the very Ist installment on 19.03.2009. He was required to deposit total amount of Rs.7,72,21,682.50 which includes principal amount and interest. For not having paid the Ist installment on 19.03.2009, the respondents PUDA issued show cause notices on 09.07.2009, 24.08.2009 and 09.10.2009. In fact, the petitioner was personally directed to appear on 20.10.2009. The petitioner neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared on 20.10.2009 to appraise the reasons for violation of conditions of allotment of plot. In view of these facts and circumstances, Estate Officer, PUDA, canceled the allotment of commercial site and consequential order was passed on 04.12.2009 forfeiting a sum of Rs.3,05,64,463 out of total deposit of Rs.6,95,73,000/-. (11) It is evident that the reading of pleadings that the petitioner has not approached court with full facts of the matter. He has suppressed the facts relating to issuance of notices dated 09.07.2009, 24.08.2009 and 9.10.2009 by 4th respondent before cancellation of allotment. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts.