CWP No.7854 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7854 of 1988 Date of Decision:- February 22, 2010 M/s Amirson through its partner Shri Surinder Singh Pahwa, Plot No.31, Sector 6, Faridabad ...Petitioner Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula (Chandigarh) and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None. ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petition is of the year 1988 and when the case was brought for hearing on 8.2.2010, it was seen that the counsel Mr.R.S.Bindra, who was representing the petitioner, was reported as dead and another counsel Ms.Renu Bala still holds the power. The registry was, therefore, directed to print the name of the counsel of the respective parties, who are on record. In the cause list, both the counsel's names for the parties have been shown, but none has appeared. The case is being taken up for disposal on the basis of records already filed. 2. The writ petition has come to be filed at a time when there was a notice of resumption issued by the first respondent on 20.3.1984 and 22.4.1985 to show cause against resumption for non-payment of installments and for levying of penalty and interest for the delay in payment of installments. After the writ petition is filed in Court, the Division Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Estate Officer, CWP No.7854 of 1988 -2- Faridabad (2nd respondent herein) on the basis of the notice issued on 15.9.1988, so as to examine the case for recalling the resumption order by offer for payment of extra payment of purchase price in terms and conditions of the allotment, as also penalty for delay in payment of the sum demanded. The outcome of the enquiry before the Estate Officer is not known. 3. The communications that have emanated from the Estate Officer seeking for payment of extra amount have arisen on account of the enhancement of compensation that the requisitioning authority had been directed to pay at the instance of original land owners. The challenge to resumption was on the basis that no calculations had been given as to how the enhancement was made and how the liability was calculated. The petitioner’s contention was further that once a sale deed had been executed there could not be power of resumption. 4. Even the original terms of allotment is seen to contain a clause for right of demand by the second respondent to obtain enhanced consideration and the written statement has made reference to a decision of Division Bench of this court in M/s Porrits Spencer Ltd. Vs. Chief Administration, Haryana Urban Development Authority in CWP No.1645 of 1980, where the Division Bench has held that allottees were bound to pay the additional price in accordance with terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The liability to pay the additional price is also spell out through 5A of Punjab Urban Estate (Sales of Site) Rules, 1965. Rule 5A reads as follows:- “5-A. Liability to pay the Additional price:- (1) in the case of scale of site by allotment, the transferee shall be liable to pay to the State Government, in addition to the State Government, in addition to the tentative price thereof, the additional price, if any determined in respect thereto under CWP No.7854 of 1988 -3- these Sales. (2) The additional price shall be payable by the transferee within a period of 30 days of the demand made in this behalf by the Estate Officer.” 5. The right to demand additional price on the basis of enhanced payment that the second respondent was made to pay, could not therefore, be denied. The claim for penalty for non-payment of the amount is anchored to Section 17 Clause (2) of the PUDA Act. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the property once sold could not be resumed, is baseless and contrary to the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977. The written statement also spells out with reference to provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Punjab Act of 1964, the terms of the conveyance deed and the obligation to make the payments and the effect of such failure. If the petitioner has obtained to himself the benefit of cancellation of the order of resumption and demand for payments, noting further remains to be done in the writ petition. However, if the petitioner has not availed of any such opportunity, the petitioner cannot impeach the right to demand additional consideration as provided under the Rules referred to above and right to resumption in the manner contemplated in the Act under the relevant Rules. The notices challenged in the writ petition have a sound legal basis and the writ petition impeaching the said notices, deserves to be dismissed. February 22, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE