Civil Writ Petition No.6945 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6945 of 1987 Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 Rohtash Singh ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. J.S.Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) The petitioner applied for the allotment of a house in H.I.G. Scheme for Housing Colony, Rewari. Application of the petitioner was accepted and a house was allotted to the petitioner HIG/GF/Tenment. Petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.7700/- within 30 days, vide communication dated 02.01.1984 (Annexure P-1). The aforesaid letter was followed by another order dated 27.03.1985 (Annexure P-2) whereby HIG/GF/Tenement No.9-C Area 154.75 square yards in the Housing Board Colony at Rewari was allotted to the petitioner on hire-purchase basis on a tentative price of Rs.1,30,800/-. The petitioner by then had already deposited an amount of Rs.33702.25. The petitioner was asked to take the possession and deposited Rs. 414/- as cost of additional land for the preferential (corner) plot. The proposed amount of sale consideration was Civil Writ Petition No.6945 of 1987 -2- payable in monthly installment of Rs.1651/- over a period of 8 years. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the respondents for completing the house as the same was incomplete. The respondents, however, did not complete the house and compelled the petitioner to take possession. It is further stated that respondents served a notice dated 24.04.1985 (Annexure P-3) asking the petitioner to take possession of the plot and to execute hire-purchase agreement in view of the allotment letter, failing which, 50% of earnest money would be forfeited. In response to the aforesaid notice, petitioner sent a letter dated 28.08.1987 (Annexure P-5) informing the respondents that he had already deposited Rs.3850/- as registration amount and another amount of Rs.33774.75 by 02.03.1985. It was also conveyed that the house may be completed. The respondents, however, passed the order dated 17.02.1987 (Annexure P-4) informing the petitioner that his request of allotment of HIG house in Housing Board Colony, Rewari, cannot be accepted as no HIG house is available. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was ready & willing to pay the balance amount, however, the construction of the house having not been completed, the petitioner could not take the possession of the house. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the construction of the house was complete though certain amenities like water supplies, colony roads, street light, sewarage were to be installed/completed with the help of local bodies. It is also stated that the petitioner was asked to sign the agreement and take possession but he refused to do so and in this regard, a notice was served upon the petitioner. Despite notice, he failed to take possession and on failure of the petitioner to take the possession, the house was allotted to respondent No.4 on 30.07.1986. Civil Writ Petition No.6945 of 1987 -3- Respondent No.4 has also filed separate reply stating therein that the house was allotted to the said respondent, vide allotment order No.160 dated 30.07.1986 on a total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and respondent No.4 deposited various amounts as per details in Para 3 of the reply. It is also stated that the answering respondent No.4 has already taken the possession of the house. No interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. This case is more than 23 years old. Admittedly, respondent No.4 was allotted the plot in 1986. He is in possession of the plot since then. At this belated stage, it is not prudent to interfere in the allotment of the house to respondent No.4. Admitted the petitioner has paid some of the amount for the plot in question. From the various correspondence on record, it appears that the respondent-Board had also not provided the requisite facilities at site and perhaps that might have persuaded the petitioner not to pay the balance amount. But at the same time, the petitioner also did not deposit the balance amount. He did not take over the possession of the allotted property. It would be in the interest of justice, if the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Board to refund the entire amount, deposited by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of deposit till payment within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14.07.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE