AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P-20) as well as the order dated 27.10.2015 (Annexure P-10). Several other prayers have also been made.
On 03.08.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: -
“Present:- Mr. Pardeep Kumar Rapria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Aman Bahri, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the plot for Shop No.248 for carrying out the business activity of Commission Agent in the New Grain Market, Karnal from the Market Committee, Karnal by making the highest bid i.e. Rs.20,80,000/-. In support of his arguments, a reference has been made to the memorandum of offer dated 04.06.1998 (Annexure P-1). It is further submitted that the Administrator, Market Committee, Karnal had issued the allotment letter dated 19.02.1999 (Annexure P-2) in favour of the petitioners and that vide resolution dated 27.12.2002, a decision had been taken to resume numerous plots auctioned through the same bid. It is stated that the petitioners were aggrieved by the same and had filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and the said authority had decided the same vide order dated 10.10.2014. The relevant part of the said order which has been highlighted by the counsel for the petitioners is as under: -
“The appellants are hereby directed to deposit 1/4th of the principle amount of the plot within next 15 days and they shall deposit the balance amount within next three months. It is further directed to the respondent market committee to give the demarcation of the plot to the appellants within a period 15 days from the receipt of this order and the appellants shall construct the shop upon the plot within a period of next six months. It is further clarified that the appellants can construct the basement/first floor after depositing the prescribed fees as per the policy of the Board. If the appellants construct the shop as per the approved plan within the granted period, the respondent market committee will not charge any time extension fees from them. The failure to fulfil the said directions, the plot in question is deemed to be resumed retrospectively. Be communicated. Panchkula Dated: 10.10.2014 (Anand Mohan Sharan) Chief Administrator”
It is submitted that the petitioners duly deposited the entire balance amount and various receipts regarding the same were issued, which have been annexed as Annexure P-5 (colly.). It is further submitted that the respondent-Market Committee was given direction to give the demarcation report to the petitioners within a period of 15 days, however, in spite of several representations including the representations dated 14.09.2015 (Anneuxre P-6) and 21.09.2015 (Annexure P-7), the respondents never communicated the demarcation report to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the internal file noting, which the petitioners got by filing RTI application, to highlight the fact that the demarcation report, even as per their own noting, has not been given to the petitioners despite the fact that the Market Committee was directed to take necessary action as per the decision dated 10.10.2014 and give the said report. The specific note dated 21.07.2017 has been highlighted on behalf of the petitioners. It is argued that on 27.10.2015, instead of supplying the demarcation report, the Market Committee, Karnal observed that the construction was to be done within a period of six months and since 11 months had passed, thus, the plot is deemed to be resumed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the said order, no reference has been made to the effect that the petitioners had not paid the balance amount after the passing of the order dated 10.10.2014. It is further submitted that against the order dated 27.10.2015, the petitioners had filed a representation before the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and the Chief Administrator vide letter dated 21.04.2017 had directed the Secretary-cum-E.O. to take necessary action as per the decision of the Chief Administrator Board dated 10.10.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further highlighted the letter dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Market Committee, Karnal to the Chief Administrator, HSAM Board, Panchkula in which the subject matter has been highlighted to be with respect to demarcation of Plot No.248, New Grain Market, Karnal and had stated that as per the record, no decision or direction has been given to the Market Committee, Karnal to challenge the order dated 10.10.2014. It is stated that in spite of the fact that the order dated 10.10.2014 had attained finality, the respondents were not complying with the same and the petitioners, who are senior citizens, were being made to run from pillar to post and even bribe was sought from the petitioners and thus, the petitioners vide complaint dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure P-14) made specific allegations against the officials of the respondents with respect to the bribe having been sought from the petitioners. It is submitted that till the filing of the complaint dated 17.09.2018, it is apparent that no revision had been filed against the order dated 10.10.2014 but immediately after the filing of the said complaint, the respondents, after a period of four years, chose to challenge the order dated 10.10.2014 by filing a revision No.81 of 2018 in which the order dated 10.10.2014 has been set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 40(3) of the Haryana Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, the State Government has the power to call for the record of any case or any order passed by the Chief Administrator but the same has to be done within a period of sixty days. It is further submitted that in the present case, the revision should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. It is argued that along with the revision no application for condonation of delay was filed, much less, allowed and thus, on the said short point alone, the order dated 19.12.2019 deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that even till date, the respondents have not complied with the order dated 10.10.2014 and the demarcation report has not been supplied to the petitioners and the resumption of plot by the respondents on the ground of non-construction is illegal and against law. It is stated that at any rate, it is settled law that the resumption of plot is to be done as a last resort. It is further stated that the impugned action thus deserves to be set aside.
It is fairly submitted that since the petitioners are senior citizens and they do not wish to prolong the litigation any further, have thus prayed that in case the respondents return the entire amount deposited by the petitioners along with reasonable interest, then, they would not further pursue the case. It is further submitted that, however, in case the respondent-authorities do not return the money deposited along with interest, then, the petitioners would wish to fully pursue the case and raise all pleas which have been raised and noticed herein above.
Learned senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 prays for a short adjournment to get instructions in the matter.
Adjourned to 06.08.2026.
To be taken up after the urgent list.
August 03, 2026”
Learned senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has filed an additional affidavit dated 06.08.2026 on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, in which, it has been stated that in order to bring the present litigation to an end, the answering respondents are agreeing to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioners i.e. Rs.38,34,100/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. The said additional affidavit dated 06.08.2026 is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are senior citizens and since they are giving up their rights in the property in question, thus, grant of interest @ 6% per annum is on the lower side. It is further submitted that in case the petitioners had the said amount with them, they would have invested the same in fixed deposit, which would have given at least 7.5% per annum interest to them. It is stated that in the said circumstance, the amount be paid along with 7.5% per annum interest.
On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, on instructions from Vikas Setia, Secretary-cum-Executive Officer, Market Committee, Karnal, has fairly stated that they would pay 7.5% per annum interest in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,34,100/- along with interest @7.5% per annum to the petitioners calculated from the respective dates of deposit till payment, within a period of one month from today.
It is made clear that in case the said amount is not refunded along with interest within a period of one month from today, then, the said respondents would be liable to pay 9% per annum interest instead of 7.5% p.a.