LPA No. 2067 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 2067 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 11, 2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS Pooja Jain ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the appellants. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, a respondent in CWP No. 12380 of 2010 preferred by respondent Pooja Jain, against order dated 17.05.2011 passed by the Single Judge, allowing the writ petition by quashing notice dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-6) served on the respondent- writ petitioner under Section 17 (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as HUDA Act, 1977) for resumption of the plot for not completing construction up to 25% of the minimum required as per the Policy within the stipulated time. LPA No. 2067 of 2011 (O&M) 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that instead of waiting for the passing of the final order, the writ petitioner- respondent has approached this Court as no resumption order has so far been passed. The writ petition is thus, premature and should not have been entertained by the Court. His further contention is that merely because during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner-respondent has completed the construction of the house, would not legalize the violation committed by the petitioner and, therefore, the equitable jurisdiction exercised by this Court while passing impugned order dated 17.05.2011 cannot sustain. Accordingly, he prays for the present appeal to be allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner be dismissed. We have heard the counsel for the appellants and have gone through the records of the case. The respondent-writ petitioner had purchased a plot measuring 432.38 Sq.mtrs. in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Panchkula from allottees Sunil Inderjit Sharma and Smt. Shipra Sharma on 12.09.2005 through a registered sale deed. All dues payable to the Haryana Urban Development Authority have been remitted to the appellants with regard to the plot and no amount was due. As per one of the conditions imposed in the allotment letter, the allottee/re- allottee of a plot is required to complete 25% of the construction over the plot within the time stipulated, which the writ-petitioner could not, leading to the issuance of notices by the appellants under Sections 17 (1), 17 (2), 17 (3) and 17(4) of the HUDA Act, 1977, to show LPA No. 2067 of 2011 (O&M) 3 cause as to why the plot in question be not resumed and 10% of the earnest money, so deposited, be not forfeited for non-construction over the plot up to minimum requirement i.e. 25%. Reply was filed by the respondent-writ petitioner stating therein that due to her personal medical problem and family problem coupled with the problems arising out of Income-Tax raid, she was unable to raise construction on the plot. She further stated that she was ready and willing to now make the construction as per the Policy of HUDA within a period of six months. When final notice under Section 17 (4) of the HUDA Act, 1977, was served on her through the impugned letter dated 11.06.2010 reiterating the earlier grounds taken by the appellants for proceeding with the resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the money deposited for the plot, the writ petitioner-respondent approached this Court by filing CWP No. 12380 of 2010. The case came up for hearing before this Court on 16.07.2010 when, on considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, while issuing notice of motion, recorded an undertaking that the petitioner will be carrying out the construction on the plot immediately and shall conclude the same within a period of six to eight weeks and is also willing to pay extension fee etc. On a subsequent date when the case was taken up for hearing on 28.01.2011, counsel for the writ petitioner had stated that the petitioner had completed the construction of the house. Counsel appearing for the HUDA was directed to seek instructions in the LPA No. 2067 of 2011 (O&M) 4 matter. Thereafter, counsel for the appellants-HUDA accepted that the writ petitioner had indeed finished the construction on the plot in question. The case when came up for hearing on 17.05.2011, the learned Single Judge passed the order quashing the show cause notice issued on the writ petitioner for resumption of the plot in question along with forfeiture of 10% of the money, so deposited, as the grounds, for which notice was served, did not exist as the house stood constructed on the plot, which fact was admitted by the counsel for the appellants-HUDA. Another aspect, which weighed on the mind of the learned Single Judge, was that there was no dues relating to the payment of the plot in question to HUDA. The petitioner had also accepted to deposit the extension fee, if any, which may be required to be deposited by the appellants-HUDA. We have considered the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and are of the view that the order passed by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The equitable jurisdiction exercised does not suffer from any vice and no interference by us in the present appeal is called for. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE JUDGE November 11, 2011 pj LPA No. 2067 of 2011 (O&M) 5