Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIAGRH Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.07.2011 Rajesh Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 4 *** The petitioners pray for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 18.01.2010, passed by the Secretary and Financial Commissioner, Town & country Planning, Haryana. Pursuant to an open auction held on 18.06.1997, the petitioners were allotted a booth site measuring 2.75 X 5.5. meters in Sector-9, Panchkula for a tentative price of Rs. 11,27,000/-. The allotment letter was issued to the petitioners on 23.06.1997. The petitioners were required to make good the balance 25% amount within 30 days of the allotment letter and pay the remaining 75% in 10 half yearly instalments Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 -2- commencing from 22.12.1997. The petitioners deposited Rs.1,69,050/- towards 15% of the allotment price on 14.07.1997 thus making up the initial deposit of Rs.2,81,750/-. The possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioners, their building plans sanctioned, and the booth complete in all respect was occupied by the petitioners. Vide order dated 18.04.2002/20.06.2002, the site allotted to the petitioners was resumed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, in exercise of his powers under Section 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for failure to pay the balance amount. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, also passed an order under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act ordering eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed an appeal. The Administrator, HUDA, vide order dated 28.02.2006/21.04.2006, set aside orders passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA after holding that the petitioners have not been granted adequate opportunity to deposit the outstanding amount within 30 days from receipt of the fresh demand by the Estate Officer. The Administrator, however, imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioners. The petitioners deposited the penalty of Rs.50,000/- on 17.05.2006 and claim that despite requests to the Estate Officer to inform them of the outstanding amounts due towards the site in dispute, no information was forthcoming. However, without waiting for a reply from the Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 -3- Estate Officer, the petitioners deposited Rs.85,000/- on 20.06.2006 and Rs.45,000/- on 23.06.2006, leaving a balance of Rs.6.6 lacs as interest. Vide letter dated 12.07.2006, the Estate Officer, HUDA, raised a fresh demand of Rs.19,76,841/-. As the petitioners were of the opinion that this figure is highly inflated, they requested the Estate Officer to furnish details regarding this amount. The petitioners thereafter deposited various other amounts and once again forwarded a request to furnish detailed calculations. The Estate Officer, however, initiated fresh proceedings under Section 18 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, who vide order dated 12.06.2007/05.07.2007, allowed the appeal, regularised the petitioners accounts but after imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners as well as the Estate Officer, HUDA, filed separate revisions. The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, vide order dated 18.01.2010, accepted the appeal filed by the HUDA and set aside the order passed by the Administrator by holding that the Administrator had no jurisdiction to pass an order contrary to the order dated 28.02.2006/21.04.2006. The Financial Commissioner, in essence, held that as the Estate Officer had raised a fresh Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 -4- demand, in compliance with the earlier order passed by the Administrator and the petitioners have failed to deposit this amount within 30 days, the Administrator had no jurisdiction to extend time or condone the delay of three months. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners were required to pay the amount as demanded by HUDA within one month, but as the Estate Officer raised a fresh demand of Rs.19 lacs and passed a fresh order of eviction under Section 18 of the Act, a fresh cause of action, accrued to the petitioners. The Administrator rightly reconsidered the matter and passed a fresh order, condoning the delay of three months. It is further argued that as the petitioners have deposited the entire amount, though with a delay of three months, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is even otherwise inequitable, arbitrary, and does not take into account the fact that the petitioners have paid an amount far in excess of the original amount. Counsel for the HUDA, submits that once the Administrator had passed an order granting a month's time to deposit the balance amount, a fresh demand or a fresh order under Section 18 does not confer jurisdiction upon the Administrator to condone delay in depositing the amount demanded by the Estate Officer. It is further argued that as the amount was demanded pursuant to a quasi judicial order, the Administrator had no jurisdiction to modify his earlier order and Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 -5- condone delay in depositing the amount. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. As facts necessary for adjudication of this petition have already been narrated in detail, they do not require repetition, except to the extent necessary. The question in dispute is, whether the order passed by the Administrator, condoning the delay of three months, is without jurisdiction? After the Administrator passed the order dated 28.02.2006/21.04.2006 granting 30 days time to the petitioners to deposit the amount due, the Estate Officer raised a demand of Rs. 19,75,841/- and passed a fresh order of eviction on 08.11.2006. The Administrator was, therefore, considering challenge to the fresh order dated 08.11.2006, passed by the Estate Officer under Section 18 of the Act and has, therefore, neither modified nor enlarged time granted by his earlier order. The Administrator has only considered the fresh order, facts arising after the Estate Officer raised a fresh demand and passed a fresh order of eviction. The Financial Commissioner appears to have confused the issue by treating the second order passed by the Administrator, as a continuation of earlier proceedings. The Financial Commissioner failed to consider that the Estate Officer has raised a fresh demand and passed a fresh order under Section 18 of the Act, directing the petitioners eviction thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action. It is true that if the Civil Writ Petition No.1234 of 2010 -6- Administrator had merely entertained a petition for extension of time, his jurisdiction may be barred but in the present case, as explained above, the Administrator has passed orders on the basis of a fresh demand and a fresh order of eviction. Even otherwise resumption of property is a last resort. The Administrator has also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- , which has been paid by the petitioners. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 18.01.2010 is set aside. The authorities under the Act would be well within their rights to initiate any further proceedings that may be necessary, for recovery of any other amount that may be due from the petitioners. No order as to costs. July 20, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE