1 47 1 0e CWP No 17154 of 2009 8 other conncctcd rnattcrs 16 IN THE HONBLE IIlGFl COURT OF PUNA13 AND IIARYANA AT CHANDIGARIl 9 DA1 0171013ClSlON 10 2010 1CWPNo17154of2009 Shiv SaranKashyap r 0 ctitioner C 1 Vcrsus I CD The Stateofllaryanaand othcrs 2CWPNo7171 of2009 Z RajKumar etipner 1 5 VerSUS I c2S The StateofHaryana and others Respondents 3CWPN017181 of2009 VU2 Z AnguriDevi 11 am ctitioner VerSUS The StateofHaryana and others cspondents 4 QORAM e HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KO11LI Present Mrshok Malik Advocate for pctitioncrs 16 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 48 ee CWP No 7154 of2009 e other connected mattcrs 2 e MrS PattarSr IOAG llaryana Mr1CKansal Advocate for HUlOA respondents PERMOD KOIlLl J 1 In all the three writ petitions orders dated 1282009 are under challengeThoughthere are separate impungedorders of the even date however the basis for these orders 1S COlnmOIl Thcse petitions are Cl4 accordingly disposedofby this comtnon order 0 ShoppingBooths were allotted in the District 95h0pping Centre I Urban Estate Jind Haryanavide allotlnent Icttersdated 31 11 991 on the 9 I basis of open auctlon The costs of lc plotsare diffcrent in different 4 cases The petitionersdeposited10Io carnesl inoney at the time of Z allotment Under the terms and conditionsofthe allotmentletter 15Io oft tX considerationamount was to be deposited withiio 30 daysfrom the issue of the allotment lctter It is statcd that 15Io of thc amount was C8 within theprescribed tilnc I Iowever thc entirebalanceamount could not be m deposited bythe pctitioncrsin terms ofthc allotmcnt lcttcr It is allegedthat Z e the petitioners visited thc Office of thc Estatc Officer HUDA in the year Om 2006 and thcycamcto know that thc plotshavc bcen resumcd In CWP No 17171 of 2009 plotwas rcsumed on 132001 Thc pctitioners preferred appealsagainstthe orders of before no 1 appeals flled bythe petitioners againstthe eoartc rcsumption orders came to be acceptedPetitioners were asked to depositall pendingdues with interest penaltyetc within one month alongwith line ofRs0001 within e Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 C 1 2 CWP No17154 of2009 0e otherconnected matters 3 15 daysfrom the intimation by the Estate Officer HUIOA The petitioners were infonned of the amount due by the Estate Officer HUDA in writing and had asked the petitionersto dcpositthc arnount within 15 days It is accepted case of the partiesthat thc pctitioncrsdcpositedthe outstanding amount alongwithinterestand penaltyetc within thc prescribedtime Ailer acceptingthe amount froni thc pctitionerthc 13stateOf6c HUDA Jind filed revlSlon pctitionbeforc the l7inancial Commissioner and 1 0 PrincipalSecretary to Governmentof Iiaryan Townand Country 0 challenging the orders of the Adininistrator IIUDA passedln appealsThe revisional authorityhas allowed the revisions and set aside the D Z orderspassedby the appellateauthorityonlyon thegroundof limitation It has been observed that the appealshave bccn led aer a Z e periodofsix years from the dateofresumption and thus appealshave been 1 held to be barred bytimc Revision Petitionshavc been acceptedOrdersof I the authority havc been in thcsewrit petitions c8 One of the contentions of thc petitioncrsIS that lhc order of S1 Va resumptlonwas exoarte order No notice was servedupon the petitioners Z as requiredunder law lt is arguedthat the Estate Offlcer should have resortedto substituted scrvlCC prcscribcdin Clause 30f Scction 42 ii9of the HUDA Act 1977and Sl llce thc ordcrshavc becn passcdat the back of the petitioners the order of resumption was violative dF the principlesof e4e naturaljusticelt is accordingly contended that thc appcllatcauthority 1S justifiedin acccptingthe appcals he have also statedthat the periodof limitation commences from the date of knowledgc ln the present 10 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 00 10 4 9 11 CWP Nol7154 of2009 8 other connected matters 4 caseand not froin the date of passingof the resulnptionordcr and thus the appeals were within time One of the contentionsof the pctitionersis that there was absolutely no dcvelopment OVC11 roads Were not constructed npr possession delivered to thc pctitionersIlcnce thcywere under no obligation to depositthe entire amount duringthe prescribcd time The pctitioners have placedOll record showingthat the arca is water loggedand thereis absolutely no devclopmentthoughsomc structures are existing m L e In thereplyflled by therespondentsthc allcgations are dcnied It is 0 stated that the in the area was coinpleted on 151998Offer of was also made in the year 1998and Ietterswere sentto the CD I petitionersthroughregisteredposts Respondents havc also placedon 1 record copy ofthe dispatchregistercontainingthc entriesofdispatchofthe Z IettersIt is furtherstatedthat noticesunderSection 1762 31 1749 were 1X issued but the petitioners did not respondfomingthe to pass the order c8 00 It is contended on bchalfofthe pctitioners that ttpctitionershaving e wn compliedwith the directions of the appcllateauthorityby depositing the Z amount it was not open lo the Estatc Officcr to havc fi lcd the revision m petitionA Division Bench of this Court in thc casc of AjaySinghMann VS State of Haryana and othcrs 20099 ReCeRe Civill 474 whe C considering the question of of ploton default n paymentof the instalments observed as underl 11 It has been repeatedly held bythe Courts that lhe power of of plots e 1 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Ol r 4 CWP No17154 002009 8i other connected mattets 5 houses commercial and industrial sites etc should bc exercised only as a last resort A lull Bench of this Court ln thc case of Ra9n Puri v Chief Commissioncr Chandigarh AIR 1981 PH 301 has categorically Iaid down that the power of resumption1S ultimate ci vil sanction and must thcrefore be used as a wcapon of last resok 1 C lnevitablyit should bc uscd with greatcaution and 0 bccausc in a sense the individualistic propcrtyrightshavc to giveway to D largerpublicpurpose 01 planncdand rcgulated e urbanisation6Sceparas 86 8 87 of thejudgmentl Z he view takenby the 17ullI3enchof this Court 111 tX er Ram Puris cassupral has becn approvedby I Honble the SuprcnleCourt in the case of c8 Oat Estates Pl Ltd v lJT Chandigarl20041 2 SCC 130 Honble thc SupremeCourt discussed Z Om the doctrine of in its historical ooaras40 to 53 and referred to various facets of thc doctrine It 9 has been held that the Court has to see that the and thc adminislrativc authority maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or thc administratie e Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402 e 1 1 CWP No17154 of2009 ce other connectedmattcrs 6 order may have on the rights Iiberties or lnterests of ersons keepinginmind thc purpose whibh they were intendcd to servc It also been concluded lhat cvcry casc has to be examined on its own facts In the case of Mls Teri Oat Estates P9Ltd Vse UT Chandigarh e and others 200421SCC 130 Honble SupremeCourt furlher held that m tX the drastic power of resumption 1Sto bc uscd only as a 1ast resort in a 0 rarest case wherethe allotteehasno intentionat all to pay To the contrary leamed counsel for has refened to a CD 1 judgment of the Iionble SupremeCourt 111the case of llaryana Urban I Authority and Another vse Roochira Ceramics and another wherein it has been held that HighCourt can onlyexaminethe 114 procedureof correctness It is accordinglyarguedon behalf of the I respondents that the revisional authorltyhavingpassed lc ordcr ltls not C8 open for this Court to examine the validityof the order of the revisional S7 Z I have heard learncd counsel for thc partiesIt is now a settled Ll of law thatthe power of should be the last resort ad should be resorted to only in case ofan allottceis unwillingto pay or unable to pay The petitioners had deposited 25Io of the alnount within the 4 stipulatedperiod thoughthe balance could nol be paid within the prescribedtime The appcaIsflled by the petitioncrsagainstthe orders of e resumptiOllcameto be acceptedby theappcllaleauthoritywho is none else I Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ll Io4 03 CWPNo 7154 of 2009 other connectedmatlers 7 than the HIJIOA The appellateauthorityon considerationof contentions of the partiesdirected the pctincrs Cappellants to pay the amount within a periodOf 15 daYSalOn8With interest The Estatc Officer the order of lhc AppellatcAuthorityand issued written communication to thepetitioncrs to depositthe outstanding 8 amountwithin 15 daysIt is admittedcase of thcpartiesthat the petitionets the amount worked out bythe 13statcOlflcer within thc 1 L from thc date of reccipt01 thc lncmo for depositof the time of 15 0 only after the amount was reccivcd by the Estatc Offlcer that amount Itis 0 he filed revision before the revisionalauthority a pleaded that the D appeals were filed beyond the umc The action of the Estate OfficerI1UDA is totaliy illegal eand unwarranted After having Z the order of theAppellateAutKorityand receivingthe amount t from thepetitioncrs it was not open to the llstate Ofllcer to have challengd theorder of the authorityby invoking By ci5 1 the amount to the pctili oners and accepting the amountthe Estate Officcr in fact 10thc rightof the petitioners Z and hiinself from challengingthc orders of the Appelle Qe e Revisionalauthorityhas totallyignoredlhis aspcctofthe matter In addition to thisthe RevisionalAuthorityhassilnplyallowed the revision on the groundthat the appeal was barred by timc lt did not record anyfindingonthe merits ofthe controversyl am ofthe consideredopinion e4 8 thatthe orders of revisional in thesepctitions are liable to be set aside flrstly because the rcv ision was not coinpetentafter the 4P Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e CWPNo1 7154 of2009 8Lother connected matters 8 ofthejudgmentofthe appelltiteauthorityand condlyt resumptionbeingthe last resort at least one opportunity to depositthe outstanding amount was to be providedto the pctitionerswhich opportunity was providedby the appellateauthorityThc pctitionersdepositedthe entire outstanding amount alongwith interest and pcnaltyThe amount was e accepted bythe Estate Offlcer without any rcscrvalion or ridcr These writ petltions are accordinglyallowcd Orders dated 1 LX 1282009 passcdby the revisional authorityiinpugned in thcse petitions 0 are herebyset aside Respondents shall hand over the of the 1 booths to the petitionerswithin a periodof onc monlh from the date a certified copy ofthis order is receivedbythc comloctcntauthority I Copyofthis order beplaced on record ofeach conccrned file Z e 1 I 102010 Permod KohIil c2S MFK Judge J NOTEWhether to be refcrred to the Reporteror notlYES em Z 1 D p7 loer04 0 1 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.12 16: 07 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document