69 1 Reqular Second Aooeal Noe5039 of 2009 lO 8 M I IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATESOF PUNJABAND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH APr Date of Decision hlmh 25 20110 1 Reqular Second ADoeal NOe5039 02 2009 lo a M 1 r 0 HaryanaUrban DevelopmentAuthorityand another 4ppellants 0 I C5 Versus I 2 Sahoo Baba espondent CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE MOHINDER PALe I Whether Reportersof the judgment may be allowed to see 00 2 To be referredto the Reportersor not 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportediil the Digest7 7 Z 1t1 MreSiddharth Batra Advocate for the appellants Mr RN Raina Advocate for the respondent MOHINDERPAL Je The Estate Officer of the Haryana Urban Authorityfor short the HellDA IS In second appeal aggrieved against the judgmentsand decrees passed by both the Courts below wherebysuit filed by S3hoo Baba against the Rashmi 2012.11.17 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 2 l Reclular Second Aopeal Noe5039 of 2009 10k M l HaUeD fOr declaration that the order of resumjng the Commercial Booth which had been allotted to the plaintiff was n ul1 and void and ilIegal wlth consequentialrelief of permanent injunctionin respectof the said Booth Ill dlsputehas been decreed I have heard the Iearnedcounsel for the partles and have gone throughthe records of the case The question requ iring determination before this Court IS 1 as to whether the power to resume the Booth in question had been 0 validly and properlyexercised by the competentauthorltyor not 0 The was aIIottedbuilt u p commercial I c Booth No 155 Sector 4 Mansa Devi ComplexPanchkula by the HUA for a consideration of Rs2790001 vlde allotment Ietter z dated 3A 2000 Th is a llotment had been made by the HUD under a rehabilitation scheme to accommodate shopkeeperswho had earlier been ru n ning shops on Mansa Devi Road PanchkuIa by I L paying groundrent to HUDA The said Booth had thus been allotted Z to the plaintlff in Iieu of his previous shop As per terms of allotment Ietter 10010 amount was to be m Pald at the time of fall of the hammer and 150Iowithin one month The Z balance amount ie 75010 was to be paid in Iumpsum without interest within 60 days or Ill ten equal SlX monthlyinstaslments with 150IoInterest As per condition No27 of the allotment Ietter 18Io compoundinterest was to be chargedfor any delaybeyond the stipulated schedule Condition No 10 of the allotment Ietter further postulated that for failure to pay any instalment by the 10 dayof the month followingthe month in which it fell due the Estate Officer of HUDA wouId i m pose penaIty and resume the plot under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban DevelopmentAuthority Act 1977 for short the Act Rashmi 2012.11.17 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 3 0 l 4 Reqular Second Aooeal N5039 of 2009 lO S M I Possession was offered to the plaintiff at the time of issuing the allotment Ietter itself vide condition No7 of the allotment Ietter The plaintiff had paid only Rs097501 and failed to pay the balance amount either in Iumpsum or in instalments with or without interest as stipulatedIn the terms of allotment norshowed any cogentreason for the nonepayment The HUDeA issued several notices to the plalntiffto pay the remainingamount However the plaintlff neither respondedto the notices of the HUDA nor paid the outstanding a mou nt 0 UltimatelY in exercise of the statutory powers under 0 Section 17 of the Act the Estate Officer H UDA Panchkula passed I t5 the resumptionorder dated 172002 Exhibit P11 I The plaintifffiled an appeal before the Administrator HUDA z exercisingthe powers of Chief Administrator HJD agalnst the resumptionorder which was dismissed vide order dated 6112002 Exhibit P2 It shows that the plaintiff had been afforded sufficient I opportunityof hearingby the competent authorities before passing Z the order of resumptionin respectof the Booth In question QO It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff had raised a 3 disputeregardingthe actual amount to be paid by him disputingthe Z rate of interest as Ievied by the HuD on the balance sale C4v consideration to be paid by the plaintiff to 1llDA in respectof the booth in dispute The plaintiff did not make any payment even towards the undisputed amount nor showed any illegalityin the resumptionorder Ieadingto the dismissalof his appeal vide order dated 6e112002 Exhibit P2J The plaintifflallottee failed to pay the priceof allotted Booth to HUD as per the terms and conditions of allotment fixed by it HUeDAl in the allotment Ietter Several notices were issued 1 Rashmi 2012.11.17 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 l1 4b a Reqular Second Apoeal N5039 of 2009 tO a M l to the plaintiff to make payment of the defaulted amount However he failed to do so Ultimately as mentioned above the Commercial Booth allotted to the plaintiff was resumed by the HUDA under Section 17 of the Act The facts and circumstances show that a great deal of induIgencewas shown by the H U DA authoritles to the plaintiffto make payment but the needful was not done by him plaintiffl The Iearned counsel for the plaintifespondent challenged the resumptionorder on the ground that the HU DA could not demand interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum However I 0 do not Ond any merit in this argument of the Iearnedcounsel for the The allotment of Booths etc to the public is a I price discovery mechanism which falls in the contractual realm Z When the priceIS not paid within time it results in Iossof revenue to the State Time Is the essence of the contract in such Iike C transactions Propertyprlces rise by the day and if within the I stipulatedperiod contractual obligationsare not fu IfilIed then In that Z event the State sufferlosses which cannot be compensatedin terms of interest Or Pelle If time overruns are to be allowed on flimsyexcuses for notpaying the money In time then the entire exercise would fail Z In view of the above the power to resume the Booth in tl question had been validly and properly exercised by the competent authorityand the Courts below should not have interfered in the orders passed by the competenta uthorities of the HUeDeAe Resultantlythis appealis allowed the ludgmentsand decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and suit of the plaintifespondent IS dismissed However there shall be no order as to costs 2 1 025 2011 MOHINDER PALI OUCGE Rashmi 2012.11.17 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document