Chaman Lal Singhal vs Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors

4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties it would be necessary to state few facts leading to filing of the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

5. The appellant submitted an application for allotment of a residential plot to the respondent-Authority. The aforesaid request of the appellant was considered and accepted. Accordingly the respondent-Authority passed an order allotting a residential plot to the appellant bearing No. 1042-P in Sector 43, Gurgaon measuring about 135 square meter at a tentative cost of Rs. 4,843.8 per square meter. As the said plot was a preferential one the appellant was required to pay an additional 10% of the price, thus making the total sale consideration at approximately Rs. 7,19,312/-. An allotment letter dated 14-06-2002 was issued by the respondent- Authority to the appellant wherein the terms and conditions of allotment were mentioned. Some of the relevant clauses having a bearing in the present case are extracted below :

7. The appellant received the aforesaid letter of allotment but he did not send any letter of acceptance of the aforesaid allotment to the respondent-Authority nor did he pay the amount of Rs. 1,14,436/- within 30 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid allotment letter. Consequent thereto, due to non-payment of the amount due and payable, the Estate Officer issued an order which was communicated under letter dated 3.12.2003 whereby the allotment in favour of the appellant was cancelled. In terms of the aforesaid clauses appearing in the allotment letter earnest money equivalent to 10% was forfeited by the respondent-Authority. The contents of the aforesaid letter issued by the Estate Officer are as under:

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation of the allotment the appellant approached the appellate authority namely, the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short `HUDA'). However, the same was of no avail and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Chief Administrator on the ground that the cancellation order passed by the Estate Officer was in accordance with and in consonance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Consequent upon passing of the said order the order forfeiting the earnest money was also upheld. While disposing of the said appeal the appellate authority also mentioned that no order was passed by the Estate Officer under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

9. The appellant still aggrieved, filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the revisional authority i.e. the Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh by an order passed on 14.7.2006. In the said order which was communicated to the appellant the revisional authority held that as per departmental instructions delay in depositing 15% of the amount up to 150 days could be condoned by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. As per instructions, Chairman of HUDA is competent to condone the delay beyond 150 days if he is satisfied that the allottee has failed to deposit the amount due to the reasons which were beyond his control. However, while disposing the revision petition an option was given to the appellant-allottee to approach the respondent- Authority for condonation of delay in depositing 15% price and for restoration of the plot. In terms of the aforesaid order the appellant-allottee gave a representation to the respondent-Authority but the said representation was rejected by the Estate Officer by only mentioning that the appeal and revision petition filed by the appellant having already been rejected by the Chief Administrator, HUDA as well as by the Commissioner, the said representation also stands dismissed. Thus, having no other alternative left the appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing the aforesaid writ petition which was also dismissed in the manner stated hereinabove.

16.It is, however, explicit from the records that there is an instruction of the respondent-Authority in terms of which delay in depositing 15% price up to 150 days could be condoned by the Chief Administrator, HUDA and that the Chairman of HUDA is competent to condone the delay beyond 150 days if he is satisfied that the allottee failed to deposit 15% of the amount due to the reasons which were beyond his control. The revisional authority while disposing of the revision petition also granted such a liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority for restoration of the plot and for condonation of the delay in depositing 15% price of the plot. The appellant availed the said opportunity provided by the revisional authority but his representation came to be dismissed by the Estate Officer on the ground that his appeal and the revision petition stood dismissed.

18.Considering the aforesaid facts, we set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and remand the matter to the Chairman, HUDA for considering the aforesaid representation of the appellant in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. We may mention that we have taken the decision to send the same to the Chairman, HUDA because the records available with us disclose that the delay to be condoned, if any, in the present case would be more than 150 days, for which Chairman, HUDA is the competent Authority. We also make it clear that no part of observations made herein would have any effect in the process of disposal of the representation which shall be disposed of on its own merit.

19.In terms of the aforesaid observations this appeal stands disposed of.