CWP No.2293 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2293 of 2009 Date of decision: February 13, 2009. Smt. Kailash Bakshi ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 23.4.1999, 28.11.2001 and 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-8, P-9 and P-11 respectively) passed by the respondents-authorities whereby commercial site No.4-P, Sector 7, Ambala, which was allotted to the petitioner on free-hold basis vide allotment letter No.11884 dated 21.2.1990 (Annexure P-1), stood resumed and the appeal/revision preferred against the resumption, have also been dismissed. The petitioner was the successful highest bidder for allotment of commercial site No.4-P, Sector 7, Ambala for a sum of Rs.3,45,000/-. It appears that she deposited 25% of the sale price as per the agreed terms and conditions. The balance amount of Rs.2,58,750/- was required to be CWP No.2293 of 2009 -: 2 :- deposited by her as per clause 5 of the allotment letter which reads as follows:- “5. The balance i.e. Rs.2,58,750/- of the above price of the plot can be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in 108 half yearly installments. The first installment will fall due after the expiry of six months of the date of issue of this letter. Each installment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount. The interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession.” The petitioner admittedly did not deposit any installment in terms of clause 5. Meanwhile, she is stated to have shifted her residence from House No.560, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, Ambala City to House No.563 in the same locality. She, however, did not inform the HUDA authorities regarding the change of address. Not one but series of registered notices under Sections 17(1), 17(3) and 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short the Act) were sent to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala (Annexure P-3 to P-7). As the petitioner failed to pay the due installments, the site was resumed vide order dated 23.4.1999 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the resumption order which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.11.2001 (Annexure P-9). It would be apposite to reproduce the following observations made by the Appellate Authority:- “I have gone through the record carefully, it is clear from CWP No.2293 of 2009 -: 3 :- the record that SCF in question was allotted on 21.02.1990 and the installments had to be paid upto 20.02.1995 as per allotment letter. Further appellant did not respond to the notices issued under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977 and even she did not bother to intimate nor change of address to the Estate Officer. Further, the appellant refused to receive the notices when the same were try to deliver to her through office staff. Even at the during the hearing of appeal her son Shri Hitesh Bakshi has noted the date of hearing for 8.5.2001 on 92.3.2001. But none appeared on 5.6.2001 and on subsequent date of hearings given in this appeal. Even register noted for 30.10.2001 was issued vide Memo No.14456 dated 19.10.2001, but none has appeared on 30.10.2001. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is not interested to deposit the outstanding dues even at this stage. The appellant has only paid 25% initial amount of the toal cost of SCF at the time of allotment and thereafter no installments has been paid. Therefore, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is rejected on merits.” (emphasis applied) After about 3 years, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the State Govt. which has also been dismissed for non prosecution by the revisional authority vide order dated 12.2.2008 after observing as follows:- “The above mentioned Revision was fixed for hearing CWP No.2293 of 2009 -: 4 :- today i.e. 12.02.2008. The petitioner failed to appear before me inspite of notice issued by the Office vide Memo No.DDA-I-07/1756-57 dated 31.12.2007. In this circumstances, I have no alternative except to dismiss the Revision Petition in default due to non prosecution. Accordingly, I order dismissal of the revision petition in default without going into merits of the case.” (emphasis applied) Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that:- (i) though notices under Sections 17(1), 17(3) and 17(4) of the HUDA Act are reported to have been sent but none was served upon her, therefore, the impugned action is violative of principles of natural justice as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sham Lal Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 99; (ii) the authorities were aware of the change of address as the resumption order was sent at House No.563 whereas the notices were sent at House No.560; and (iii) the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the due installments along with interest and penal interest. Having hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am satisfied that no case to interfere with the same is made out. The petitioner was aware of the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter dated 21.2.1990 (Annexure P-1), it would be too far fetched to believe that she was not aware of the fact that the 75% balance amount was required to be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days or in 108 half yearly installments along with interest. The fact that not a single installment was ever deposited, is sufficient to establish that she CWP No.2293 of 2009 -: 5 :- had no intention to honour the agreed terms and conditions. Had the petitioner been interested to retain the allotment, she would have informed the HUDA authorities of the change of her address from House No.560 to 563. Admittedly, no such intimation was ever sent by her. It cannot be believed that the registered notices sent to the petitioner at House No.560, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, Ambala City were not delivered to her at House 563, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, Ambala City or that she did not come to know about the issuance of these repeated notices. In any case, there is a categoric finding of fact returned by the Appellate Authority that efforts were made to effect service of those notices through staff also but she refused to receive the same. The petitioner's intention not to pay anything towards the sale price of the allotted site is very much discernible from the fact that before the appellate authority also no one appeared on her behalf despite the date having been noted down by the petitioner's son. Similar was the fate of the revision petition which was not only filed after a delay of 3 years but had to be dismissed for non prosecution after it remained pending for almost four years. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and now when the prices of the real estate have gone high manifold, her willingness to pay the balance amount along with interest, cannot be entertained. No case to interfere with by this Court is made out. Dismissed. February 13, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge