Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 20.3.2002, 13.8.2008 and 12.11.2009 (Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8, respectively). The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents no.1 and 2 to restore shop/site no. 185, Sector 25, Transport Nagar, Panipat, to the legal heirs of the original allottee, i.e., Hans Raj Chaudhary.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that shop/site no. 185, Sector 25, Transport Nagar, Panipat, was allotted to Hans Raj Chaudhary, father of the petitioner as sole proprietor of M/s Delhi Sonepat Transport Company. All installments relating to the consideration amount, as set out in the allotment letter, were paid. The possession of the site was delivered on 1.3.1988. Shri Hans Raj Chaudhary passed away on 25.10.1990 leaving behind his widow, daughters and sons. The petitioner is the youngest amongst the children left behind by Hans Raj Chaudhary. The petitioner is doing a small time transport business at Panipat. The petitioner had to look after his ailing mother and his daughter, who suffers from Leucodystrophy and Cervical Dystonia and had to be treated at various hospitals all over the country as detailed in the petition. The petitioner's mother passed away after a prolonged illness on 12.1.2008. The petitioner approached the respondents for transfer of the plot to the name of legal heirs of Hans Raj Chaudhary. He was informed that the plot has been resumed on 20.3.2002. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and was supplied a copy of the resumption order dated 20.3.2002 on 21.4.2008. The petitioner was shocked to learn that the plot was resumed for non-payment of enhanced amount demanded by the respondents as payment of enhanced compensation for land acquired by the respondents. The order of resumption records that a demand was raised for payment of enhanced amount of Rs.2,98,840/- on 5.11.1998, but the allottee did not deposit this amount. A notice dated 20.4.1999 was served under section 17(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") followed by a notice under section 17(3) of the Act issued on 21.8.2001, but as the allottee has not made payment, the plot is being resumed under section 17 (4) of the Act.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the plot was allotted to M/s Delhi Sonepat Transport Company through Shri Hans Raj Chaudhary, father of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the entire consideration amount, as set out in the allotment letters, was paid. The plot has been resumed for non-payment of enhanced amount that became due on account of enhancement of price of land acquired by HUDA. Shri Hans Raj Chaudhary passed away on 25.10.1990. No notice was ever served upon his legal heirs. The first notice was issued in 1998. The registered notices were returned undelivered. The order of resumption was passed on a printed proforma without application of mind. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has upheld the resumption order on the ground that the appellant has not paid the instalments. It is the positive case of the respondents that resumption was ordered as the allottee did not pay the enhanced amount due on account of enhancement of price of the acquired land. The order passed by the appellate authority is, therefore, factually incorrect. It is further submitted that as during pendency of the petition, the petitioner has deposited Rs.5,30,000/-,instead of the original demand of Rs.2,98,840/-, the writ petition may be allowed and orders of resumption may be set aside.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

Admittedly, the shop/site in dispute was allotted to M/s Delhi Sonepat Transport Company thorough Shri Hans Raj Chaudhary, father of the petitioner, on 1.3.1988. It is not disputed that Shri Hans Raj Chaudhary passed away on 25.10.1990 leaving behind the petitioner, Lajwanti, his widow, and four other children. It is not denied that the entire sale consideration for the booth/site was paid in accordance with the schedule set out in the allotment letter. A demand for payment of Rs.2,98,840/- towards enhanced compensation for acquisition of land was raised on M/s Delhi Sonepat Transport Company for booth/site no.185, Sector 25, Transport Nagar, Panipat, vide notice dated 5.11.1998 issued under section 17(1) of the Act. Another notice under section 17(2) of the Act was issued on 20.4.1999, requiring allottee to appear on 11.5.1999 and show cause why he has not paid this amount. As no response was forthcoming, a penalty of Rs.29,884/- was imposed vide order dated 21.8.2002 followed by a notice under section 17(3) of the Act, requiring the allottee to show cause why allotment be not cancelled. As admitted by the respondents, all the notices were received back undelivered. The plot was eventually resumed and 10% of the consideration amount was forfeited vide order dated 20.3.2002. The petitioner alleges that no notice was ever received by the firm or by the legal heirs of Hans Raj Chaudhary.

Section 17 of the Act confers a confiscatory power that empowers the respondents to resume a plot and forfeit part of the consideration amount. The power of resumption has to be exercised with care, caution and as a last resort as it deprives a person of his property. It is not denied by the respondents that original installments have been paid. The notices were received back unserved. The shop/site continues in the name of the original allottee, i.e., M/s Delhi Sonepat Transport Company through Shri Hans Raj Chaudhary, father of the petitioner. During pendency of proceedings, the petitioner has deposited Rs.5,30,000/-. While considering a similar order of resumption, though in the context of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled M/s Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh 2004(2) S.C.C., 130, held in favour of the allottee, where the allottee had paid only 25% of the original consideration and set aside the order of resumption. A relevant extract from this judgment reads as follows: