Raghubir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 January, 2024
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that vide
notice dated 25.05.2018 (P-5), the respondent-authorities, owing to
enhancement in the cost of acquisition, demanded the petitioner to pay
additional cost of the allotted site @ Rs.4615.79 per sq. meter. Accordingly,
Rs.14,95,516/- were sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Being
aggrieved, Residents Welfare Association moved this Court vide CWP-27397-
2018 (Residents Welfare Association v. The State of Haryana and others).
Which was disposed of by an order dated 26.10.2018, requiring the
respondent-authorities to consider the petition itself as a representation, and
furnish the details of the components/calculations that formed basis of the
enhanced demand. He submits that even though the authorities failed to furnish
any such details/calculations, but yet the recovery, pursuant to the impugned
demand, was sought to be caused. As a result, the Association initiated the
contempt proceedings (COCP-1754-2019). However, the authorities, during
20 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2024 01:48:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010852-DB
CWP-25223-2023(O&M) 21 2024:PHHC:010852-DB
And other connected matters
the pendency of the said proceedings, in terms of the fresh policy of HUDA
dated 22.08.2019, withdrew the impugned demand (Rs.4615.79 per sq. meter)
itself. Accordingly, on the statement of the counsel for the respondents, the
Contempt Court, vide order dated 24.02.2020 (P-6), dismissed the petition as
withdrawn. Further, in reference to the said order (P-6), it is urged that learned
counsel for the respondents, before the Contempt Court, had specifically
submitted that as and when any fresh demand is raised, the Association would
be apprised accordingly. It is submitted that no fresh demand has been made by
the respondent-authorities to date. But still an amount of Rs.18,97,816/-, based
upon the non-existent demand (of Rs.4615.79 per sq. meter), continue to be
reflected as outstanding dues on the web portal of the respondents. Resultantly,
the rights and interest of the petitioner are severally affected. For, neither the
petitioner is in a position to submit the site plans to construct the allotted
site/plot nor can he, despite being its lawful owner, alienate the property. Thus,
the show cause notice(s) and the alleged outstanding dues (Rs.18,97,816/-)
shown on the web-portal against the petitioner(s), are not only erroneous but
even contemptuous. Being, apparently in the teeth of the undertaking furnished
before the Contempt Court as also the order dated 24.02.2020 (P-6). However,
as regards mandamus to command the respondent-authorities, to refund the
surplus amount @ Rs.1298.13 per sq. meter, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners fairly submits that the prayer is apparently erroneous. For, pursuant
to the decree passed by the Civil Court in their favour, the matter is already
pending before the Executing Court and the petitioners would pursue their
claim/interest before the said Court, if so advised and admissible.