Balbir Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 19.10.2006/15.11.2006 (Annexure P-1), whereby

an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was refunded to the petitioner consequent to the cancellation of plot No. 1488, Sector 43, Gurgaon. The petitioner

was allotted a plot measuring 2 Marlas under 20-Point Programme of Haryana Government vide letter of allotment dated 07.02.2003. It is not

disputed that in terms of conditions of letter of allotment, the petitioner was to deposit 15% of the total price within 30 days from the date of issue

of allotment letter and the balance amount was to be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days or in 100 monthly installments along

with interest.

The petitioner did not deposit 15% of the amount i.e. Rs. 3259/- within 30 days and the balance amount of Rs. 26641/- within 60 days.

Subsequently, the petitioner sent a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which was returned vide communication impugned in the present writ petition. The

petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure P-4). Still aggrieved, the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The petitioner relies upon an order passed in case titled as ''Shri Sube Singh v. Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon'' (Annexure P-3) to contend

that similarly situated allottee was permitted to deposit the amount, whereas the petitioner has been discriminated in not permitting the amount to be

deposited after the period prescribed. It is also argued that the petitioner belongs to Economically Weaker Section of the society and therefore, the

respondents should show indulgence to condone the delay in deposit of the amount.

The petitioner also relies upon a judgment of this Court in Smt. Sandhya Jindal v. The State of Haryana and others, 1996 (3) PLR 614, wherein

it has been held that the allotment cannot be cancelled for non payment of 15% of the amount without complying the principle of natural justice.

However, the matter has been examined by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and

Others, , wherein it has been held that letter of allotment is an offer, which is required to be accepted by the allottee within the period prescribed. It

is on acceptance of the offer i.e. by deposit of 15% of the amount, a concluded contract comes into existence and that no opportunity of hearing is

required to be given before cancellation of the plot for the reason of non deposit of 15% of the amount in terms of the conditions of the letter of

allotment. It has been held to the following effect:

In our considered opinion, the appellant failed to comply with the aforesaid clauses of the letter of allotment and, therefore, his allotment stood

cancelled and the earnest money deposited by him could be forfeited by the Authority. The order of cancellation came to be passed by the

competent authority after 500 days. Be that as it may, the aforesaid allotment of plot of land in favour of the appellant came to be cancelled

because of non-payment of the amount as stipulated in clause 5 and, therefore, the earnest money deposited by him could be forfeited by the

Authority.

Since the case of the appellant comes within the ambit of clauses 4 and 5 of the allotment letter, the provisions of Section 17 of the Act would

have no application and would not apply. It is thus established that there was no agreement/contract between the appellant and the respondent-

Authority and there being no such agreement/contract and because of non-compliance of requirement of clause 5, the issue with regard to violation

of principles of natural justice also would not arise. Therefore, the contentions that provisions of Section 17 of the Act are violated and that there is

non compliance of the principles of natural justice have no merit.

Though, the petitioner is said to be belonging to Economically Weaker Section of the society, but he has not deposited the amount of Rs.

3259/- within 30 days or for that matter for three years. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner wants to take benefit of the high market price

prevailing in the area of Gurgaon and indulge in profiteering.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Dismissed.