CWP No.16546 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16546 of 2008 Date of decision:03.08.2011 Hans Raj ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Ashwani Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Siddharth Batra, Advocate for HUDA. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 27.05.1996, 12.09.2003 and 07.01.2008, passed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar, the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar (exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula) and the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, respectively. The petitioner purchased a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in an open auction for a sum of Rs.3,89,000/-. The letter of allotment was issued on 24.02.1988. The petitioner deposited 10% of the total consideration at the fall of hammer and was required to make up 25% of the amount within thirty days. The balance amount of Rs.2,91,750/- was to be paid with interest within sixty days from issuance of the allotment letter in six equal annual instalments. CWP No.16546 of 2008 -2- Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited more than 50% amount upto 1990 but as the entire amount was not been paid, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, passed an order dated 27.05.1996, resuming the plot. It is argued that the order of resumption is a nullity as it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount on account of floods, unavoidable family circumstances, financial crises and the lack of developmental work in the area around the plot. It is further argued that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed without taking into consideration the bonafides of the petitioner, and the deposit of more than 50% of the amount due. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has already deposited Rs.3,89,000/-, payable by him an equitable view may be adopted and the respondents may be directed to re-consider the petitioner's case. Counsel for the HUDA submits that the plot was allotted to the petitioner in 1988. The obligation to make payment rests with the petitioner. Separate notices dated 03.07.1992, 15.01.1993, 22.03.1994 and 10.03.1996 were served upon the petitioner under Sections 17(1) (2)(3) and (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977, requiring the petitioner to pay the balance amount. Despite these notices no response was forthcoming compelling the Estate Officer to cancel the allotment and order forfeiture of 10% of the amount. It is further argued that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected as it was filed CWP No.16546 of 2008 -3- after a delay of seven years. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. As is apparent from the order of resumption, the petitioner had paid a major part of the amount except for an amount of 48,625/-. It is true that the petitioner may have been negligent, but this alone does not absolve the appellate or the revisional authority from considering the petitioner's explanation. The petitioner has paid a substantial amount, and the shortfall in 1996 was only Rs.48,625/-. The case in hand is not one where the petitioner has not paid any amount or has not paid the initial amount. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner prays that if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to appear before the revisional authority to put forth his explanation for non-payment of amount of Rs.48,625/-, he is ready to pay the current market price alongwith adequate escalation and interest. In view of what has been stated hereinabove and in view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 07.01.2008, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, to consider and decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law after taking into consideration the explanation if any furnished by the petitioner for failure to pay the balance amount of Rs.48,625/- in the year 1996. In case the revisional CWP No.16546 of 2008 -4- authority decides to accept the petitioner's explanation, the petitioner shall be required to pay price of the plot at current market value to be determined by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, with suitable escalation and interest. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, on 22.09.2011. 03.08.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE