IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular Second Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.1.2008 Tejender Singh --- Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Administrator and others --- Respondent *** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2007 of the trial court which has been duly affirmed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for a decree of declaration to the effect that the notice dated 20.6.2001 issued by defendant No.2 for eviction of the plaintiff from Booth No. 167, Sector 7, Faridabad was illegal, null and void ab initio, and not binding on his rights qua that Booth. The facts of the case as set up by the plaintiff are that he was owner in possession of Booth No.166-167, Sector 7, Faridabad, RSA No. 185 of 2008 which was originally allotted to Ishwar Dutt in the year 1979 and ultimately, it had been sold to Swaran Singh in 1985. Swaran Singh appointed the plaintiff as his General Power of Attorney. As per averments of the plaintiff, in fact, booth No. 167 was allotted to Ishwar Dutt on 26.6.1979 but due to mistake of the authorities, possession of booth no. 166 was handed over. The mistake was admitted by the authorities. It was pleaded that defendant No.2 issued a notice dated February 12, 2001 informing the appellant that Booth No. 167 had been resumed as a sum of Rs. 2,77,520/- had not been deposited. The plaintiff filed appeal against the resumption order which was pending before the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the authorities issued a show cause notice under Section 18(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) in their endeavour to evict the plaintiff from booth no. 167. The primary thrust of challenge made by the plaintiff was that since an appeal was pending against the resumption order of the booth, and also that no opportunity of personal hearing had been granted to him, the notice dated 20.6.2001 was bad in law and deserved to be withdrawn. On behalf of the defendants, a preliminary objection was raised that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Act. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had committed wilful defaults in payment towards the booth in question and as a result the HUDA suffered huge loss and even the development of civil amenities was adversely affected. 2 RSA No. 185 of 2008 At the trial, pleas raised by the plaintiff were not accepted. It was however, found that civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The suit was, however, dismissed. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The first appellate court found that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. The allotting authorities gave numerous opportunities to the plaintiff for making payment but upon his failure to do so, proceedings for resumption of the booth were started. Still getting no response, the property was resumed. The resumption order was not challenged by the plaintiff in a court and simply an appeal against the said order was filed before the HUDA authorities in which there was no stay of the proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. In this appeal, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below have been assailed. The courts below have specifically recorded that the resumption order in respect of the booth in question had not been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit and there was nothing about interest and payment of instalment in the pleadings. It was further noticed that the appeal against the resumption order was under challenge before the Administrator and consequently, no decree could have been passed. No illegality or perversity could be noticed in the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below warranting interference by this Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. 3 RSA No. 185 of 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 25, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 4