CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Brij Lal Garg vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 July 2014 · Citation: (2014) 07 P&H CK 0416

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surya Kant, J · Surinder Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 — Section 17
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 14595 of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 354 words

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner was allotted a booth in an open auction held on 23.05.1984 for a sale price of Rs. 1,16,000/-. It appears that the petitioner did deposit one instalment but the balance instalments were not paid. The HUDA authorities served the petitioner with repeated show cause notices u/s 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977 but finding no response, the allotment was cancelled and the site was resumed vide order dated 29.03.1995.

2.

The petitioner sat at home and did not challenge that order before any forum for a period of 10 years and it was on 21.03.2005 that he filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA which was dismissed on merits as well as being hopelessly time-barred. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the State Government.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and gone through the record.

4.

As the facts would speak for themselves, the petitioner has to blame himself for the manner in which he allowed the grass to grow under his feet and took no action for a period of 10 years against the order of resumption. The petitioner''s submission before the revisional authority or this Court that he is willing to deposit the due amount along with penal interest etc. or the current market price cannot be accepted for the reason that the commercial property has to be allotted by way of public auction. It is not possible for this Court or the authorities to determine the ''current market price'' unless the property is subjected to open auction.

5.

Reliance placed on the decisions of this Court in (i) Roochira Ceramics Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, ; (ii) Ram Gopal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another, ; and (iii) Kalyan Singh Vs. Estate Officer, as well as of the Supreme Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Others, do not advance the petitioner''s case for the obvious reason that in the instant case, petitioner owes an explanation for not questioning the resumption order for long 10 years.

6.

Dismissed.