Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)The Estate Officer And Another vs Parveen Kumar on 17 September, 2009
In fact, circumstances appearing on record would indicate that
controversy regarding rate on interest has been raised by the petitioner to
camouflage his intention not to pay the due installment and continue enjoying
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.12.05 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.21639 of 2010 (O&M) -9-
possession of the booth constructed on the booth site. The booth site was
allotted to him on 15.06.1988. He took possession of the booth site
immediately on its allotment; raised construction thereon without even getting
the plan approved and occupied the booth so constructed in the year 1993. Last
installment towards balance purchase price (after adjusting 25% paid by him)
was payable on or before 15.06.1993. Order of resumption was passed on
26.04.2001. Till that day the petitioner had deposited only an amount of Rs.
20,000/- (on 04.05.1993).Controversy regarding rate of interest was raised for
the first time in Civil Suit No.19 of 2001 which was filed on 22.01.2001. In
fact Estate Officer, HUDA, was waiting for petitioner's response to the various
notices issued to him when the suit was filed presumably to pre-empt passing
of order of resumption, which was the only alternative available to HUDA in
the situation for which the petitioner alone was responsible. Needless to say,
Section 50 of the Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court and it has ultimately
been so held by this Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2009 passed in RSA No.
2317 of 2009, The Estate Officer and another versus Parveen Kumar,
arising from the civil suit filed by the petitioner.
Section 17 in Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
Mr.Anil Kumar vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 18 November, 2011
In Anil Kumar versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court found that the Appellate Authority
while adjudicating upon the appeal preferred by the allottee, had allowed him
further time to discharge his financial liabilities and had, thus, "ignored/over-
looked/condoned the delay at the hands of the petitioner in not being able to
pay installments, interest and ground rent on time" and then at the very outset,
the allottee had undertaken to deposit the entire amount due in lieu of the afore-
stated site, along with interest and ground rent etc.; had deposited a sum of Rs.
10 lacs on 10.12.2003 i.e. a few days after the filing of the writ petition; a sum
of Rs.37,76,330/- was paid on 02.01.2004 and balance amount of
Rs.10,14,542/- reflected as outstanding in the additional affidavit filed by the
Assistant Estate Officer dated 13.10.2004 , was also paid during the pendency
of the writ petition. It was in these circumstances that this Court disposed of
the writ petition by holding, "We are satisfied that the petitioner has not only
paid the principal amount, but interest also on account of delayed payments in
terms of statutory rules governing allotment of sites at the hands of the
respondents besides ground rent etc, to the respondents. In the peculiar
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.12.05 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.21639 of 2010 (O&M) -19-
circumstances of this case, we are, therefore, satisfied that the order passed by
the Revisional Authority deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly set
aside. The Revisional Authority shall reconsider the issue keeping in view the
payments made by the petitioner, and in case any balance amount is still
liberty should be granted to the petitioner to make such payment within a
reasonable time. The Revisional Authority shall re-adjudicate upon the issue
by passing a fresh order in accordance with law."
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Rajesh Kumar And Others on 21 February, 2012
In Haryana Urban Development Authority and others versus
Rajesh Kumar and others (supra), order of eviction consequent upon
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.12.05 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.21639 of 2010 (O&M) -18-
resumption was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court and in
Letters Patent Appeal it was conceded on behalf of HUDA that the allottees
had paid, though a bit late, the entire outstanding amounts together with penal
interest and penalty, as also the amount claimed subsequently and on the day
judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge nothing was due from the
allottees.
Ram Kishan Gulati vs State Of Haryana on 2 June, 1999
In Ram Kishan Gulati versus State of Haryana (supra) one of the
questions raised was whether HUDA could charge interest @ 18% per annum
from the petitioners as a condition for restoration of the plot and the Division
Bench of this Court answered the question by holding as under:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 50 in Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Secretary, Bhubaneswar Development ... vs Susanta Kumar Mishra on 30 January, 2009
Contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant that the petitioner cannot be charged interest @ 18% per annum is
wholly misplaced and misconceived. It shall stand repetition to refer here to
Condition No.05 of the letter of allotment (P2) which gave an option to the
petitioner either to deposit the balance amount of purchase price of the booth
site, i.e. Rs.2,79,000/- in one lump sum, without interest, within 60 days of the
date of issue of letter of allotment, or with interest @ 10% per annum, in ten
half yearly equated installments. Petitioner, in his wisdom, opted for the second
option, i.e. payment of balance amount of purchase price of the booth site with
interest @ 10% per annum, in ten half yearly equated installments. It is not in
dispute that as per policy of HUDA in vogue at the time of allotment in favour
of the petitioner, he was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the
defaulted installments and the allotment was subject to provisions of the Act
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.12.05 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.21639 of 2010 (O&M) -8-
and rules/regulations/policy instructions issued under the Act. In fact, claim of
interest @ 18% per annum is an opportunity provided to an allottee to avoid
resumption of plot on payment of such amount. Therefore, the said claim
cannot be said to be unjustified. Support for this view may be derived from
Secretary, Bhubaneshwar Development Authority v. Susanta Kumar
Mishra, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 684, wherein it has been held as
under:-