Rajinder Mohan Mehta vs The Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another

A.P. Chowdhri and B.S. Nehra, JJ.—The petitioner was allotted plot No. 176 in Industrial Area, Phase-I in the Urban Estate of Panchkula by Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''HUDA'') vide allotment letter dated August 5,1974. Actual possession of the plot was given to the petitioner on July 9, 1981. The price of the plot including the enhanced price as a result of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of the land by the Courts was completed in driblets by 1984. Notice (Annexure P-4) u/s 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was issued by the Estate Officer to the petitioner on November 12, 1990, to show cause why the plot be not resumed, as the petitioner-allottee had failed to make the construction within three years given for the purpose. The petitioner sent reply (Annexure P-5) dated January 28, 1991, explaining his difficulties why construction could not be made and praying for two years'' extension. The said reply does not appear to have been taken into consideration and a second show cause notice (Annexure P 6) dated February 26, 1991, also u/s 17(3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer on March 14, 1991, and gave an assurance that he would complete the construction within a reasonable time. He also furnished a bank draft for Rs. 15,000/- dated March 21,1991, and affidavit dated April 2 1991, undertaking to complete the construction with one year. However, by order dated May 13, 199.1 (Annexure P-10) the site was resumed u/s 17(4) of the Act and a sum of Rs. 2882/- was forfeited. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order u/s 17(5) of the Act to the Chief Administrator. During the pendency of the appeal, a policy decision, Annexure P-14, was adopted by HUDA and intimation was given to all Administrators vide letter Annexure P-13 dated November. 11. 1991. According to the policy decision, where the extended period for construction had expired and the resumption had not taken place, the allottees could seek extension upto June 30, 1992, on payment of prescribed fee. It was made clear that would be the last opportunity to the plot holders to seek extension. The petitioner was, however, not considered eligible for the relief in terms of the policy decision and his appeal was dismissed by the Chief Administrator by order Annexure P-12 dated October 28, 1992.

In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, date of delivery of possession and also the fact that the entire amount of consideration including the enhanced price stands paid, have not been disputed. The broad stand taken therein is that in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to the petitioner, he failed to complete the construction within the prescribed/extended period and be was thus not entitled to further extension. With regard to the policy decision, it has been argued that the same does not in terms apply to the case of the petitioner.

We have gone through the pleading and the documents relied on by both the parties and have heard their learned counsel.

The main contention of Mr P.K. Pali, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that resumption u/s 17(4) of the Act is a drastic remedy and in the nature of things, the same could be justifiably resorted to only in rarest of rare cases. He has drawn our attention to a number of decisions of this Court on the point starting from Shri Ram Puri v. The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. (1982) 84 P. L. R. 388 . The other authorities referred to by him are:--

(1) Shri Brij Bhushan v. The Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh (1987) 91 P L R 598.

(2) D.N. Kejriwal v. The State of Haryana 1987 P. L. J. 532 and

(3) Mrs. Sita Rani Gupta v. State of Haryana, (1991) 100 P L R 15.

He has further contended that: during the pendency of the appeal before the Chief Administration, the policy decision Annexure P-14 came into force and the petitioner could be given relief in terms of the said policy decision: In this connection, if wag submitted that hearing of an appeal was a continuation of the proceedings in the original court and the above policy decision should, therefore, be held applicable to the case of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the petitioner deserved to be given relief as be was denied the benefit of the revised policy arbitrarily. The petitioner has given an undertaking today in the Court that he would submit requisite building plans etc. along with the prescribed fee for sanction/revalidation within one week from today to the prescribed authority and shall commence construction within one month of the sanction of the building plans/revalidation He has further undertaken that from the date of commencement he shall complete the construction within a period of one year. In view of the above undertaking, the impugned orders Annexures P-10 and P-12 are set aside The petitioner shall be bound by the undertaking He shall be given extension for the period during which the petitioner has undertaken to complete the construction. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the prescribed extension fee to the authorities concerned within one month from today. The petitioner will not be entitled to apply for further extension. If the petitioner fails in the above noted undertaking, it shall be open to the authorities under the Act to take further appropriate action according to law. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.