Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Estate Officer -Respondent No.4 filed a revision against the aforesaid order on 06.06.2011, which was decided on 05.01.2016. It was, 4 of 20 inter alia, contended on behalf of the Estate Officer that the site had rightly been resumed vide order dated 07.11.1997 as the petitioner had failed to pay the instalments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. After the resumption, eviction notices were issued on 02.06.2001 and 04.10.2001. But the petitioner ignored these notices and remained in slumber for over ten years evincing no interest in the property. The petitioner executed a GPA in favour of Rajiv Oberoi on 28.12.2007 i.e., more than ten years after the passing of the resumption order. It was only thereafter that the petitioner instituted proceedings by filing a consumer complaint on 24.01.2008. The petitioner on the other hand had urged that the instalments could not be paid as HUDA had failed to complete the development works in the area due to ban imposed by the Supreme Court on construction within 5 km radius of Badkhal lake.

The present petition in our view is one where both considerations which would militate against the non charging of extension fee are present. The petitioner is an auction purchaser. He did not deposit even a single instalment qua the 75% balance amount. There is no extenuating or compelling circumstance pleaded or proved for the non payment. The only justification against non payment was that development work was not carried out which as held in Ajay Kumar Jain's case (supra) cannot be a ground to withhold payment of instalments. Even regarding non development there is nothing on record to indicate that he raised this issue with the respondents. The plot was resumed vide order dated 07.11.1997. Though from the record it is clear that the Section 17 notices sent to him were received back unserved, which is the primary ground for setting aside the resumption order but it also cannot be ignored as rightly noted by the revisional authority that the petitioner remained silent even for ten years after the resumption. He executed a power of attorney in favour of one Rajiv Oberoi on 28.12.2007. It was thereafter that he, through the GPA initiated legal steps to have the resumption order set aside. This sudden activity by the petitioner, about ten years after the resumption order and that too only after the execution of the power of attorney also raises suspicion about the true nature of the GPA as noticed by the Supreme Court Ved Parkash Kathuria's case (supra).