C.W.P. No.11302 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.11302 of 1989
Date of Decision: 11.01.2010
Harbans Lal Dhawan C/o Good Luck Printers, 894/1, Chandiwalan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi ....Petitioner Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad through its Chief Administrator and another
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ` -.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The writ petition challenges the issuance of a notice by the 1st respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority ordering resumption of an allotment of a residential plot made to the petitioner. Initially, a notice appears to have been sent to the petitioner admitting the allotment to the petitioner and the liability of the petitioner to make periodical installments as per the terms of allotment and calling upon the petitioner to make the payment with a penalty of Rs.196/-. In the subsequent notice dated C.W.P. No.11302 of 1989 -2- 24.12.1976, there was a reference to the fact that the petitioner had been served with notices on 24.07.1975 and 29.09.1975 and stating that since the petitioner had committed default in complying with the terms and conditions, the allotment had been cancelled and resumption ordered. The impugned order further directed that the amount that had been already paid would stand forfeited.
2. The challenge to resumption notice is made by the petitioner contending that the first notice dated 24.07.1975 had merely called upon that the petitioner to make payment with penalty and it did not make any reference to the consequence of non-payment as resulting in resumption of plot and forfeiture of the amount already made. It must be noticed that the resumption order issued makes reference to letters dated 24.07.1975 and 29.09.1975 and the copies of letters have not been filed along with petition nor is there a reference anywhere in the writ petition that the two letters had not been sent by the 1st respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is also unable to produce the copies of the letters but he points out that the cancellation of allotment followed a letter of request by the petitioner himself made on 16.01.1976 that he was unable to make the payments of installments and desiring the cancellation and refund of the amount. In the subsequent letter purported to have been written on 16.08.1976, the petitioner has stated that he C.W.P. No.11302 of 1989 -3- had purchased a DDA flat at Delhi and he was unable to pay the installments and he was only seeking for refund of the amount. The petitioner, who having given a letter of communication seeking for cancellation shall be estopped from staking his claim with reference to the very same property and impugning the order of resumption.
3. The residuary point that would remain for consideration would be whether the petitioner should be allowed the refund of the amount, which he had admittedly paid at the time when the allotment was made. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent refers to the terms and conditions of allotment, which include in clause 12 that if the amount was not paid within the time prescribed or within the time extended by the authority, the property could be liable for resumption and forfeit also the whole or part of the money paid in respect thereof. The forfeiture effected conforms to the terms and conditions and the petitioner could have no remedy before this Court.
4. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN)
January 11, 2010