Ram Chander vs State Of Haryana & Anr

Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the order/proceedings dated

28.3.2012, Annexure P.8 sent to him vide letter dated 12.6.2012, Annexure P.9 whereby the appeal filed by him against the resumption order dated

6.7.2010, Annexure P.3 has been dismissed by respondent No.2.

A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner was allotted an industrial

plot No.241, Phase I, Industrial Estate, Barhi, District Sonepat vide letter of allotment letter dated 11.4.2007, Annexure P.1. The petitioner was allotted

plot measuring 450 square meters at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per square meter for the total price of Rs. 8,10,000/-. 10% of the total cost was paid

alongwith the application and 15% was paid on 9.5.2007 i.e. within 30 days of the issuance of the regular letter of allotment. Rest of 75% was to be

paid in five half yearly installments starting from October 2007 to October 2009. The petitioner had submitted draft dated 2.7.2010 of Rs. 6 lacs to the

respondents. However, the plot allotted to the petitioner was resumed vide order dated 6.7.2010, Annexure P.3 on account of non payment of

installments. After passing of the order of resumption, the draft of Rs. 6 lacs was returned back to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.7.2010 alongwith

another draft of Rs. 1,21,500/-. According to the petitioner, till date the plot has not been re-allotted by respondents to any third party. Aggrieved by

the order dated 6.7.2010, Annexure P.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority headed by respondent No.2 on 30.9.2010,

Annexure P.4. Vide letter dated 7.12.2010, the petitioner was informed that the hearing in the appeal was fixed for 15.12.2010. On the said date,

learned counsel for the petitioner appeared but the committee insisted upon personal appearance of the petitioner and thus, the hearing was adjourned.

In the meantime, the petitioner again submitted his written submissions before the appellate authority vide communication dated 14.3.2011, Annexure

P.6.On 18.7.2011, the petitioner was again informed about the date of hearing as 26.7.2011. On the said date, the petitioner could not appear as he

remained under the impression that he had already submitted his written submissions. Accordingly, the hearing of the appeal was again deferred. The

petitioner continued visiting the office of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking information regarding the fixing of any date by the appellate authority. More

than one year had gone by but neither any order nor any proceedings were served upon the petitioner. Under the impression that the appeal had not

been decided, the petitioner filed CWP No.1598 of 2013 in this Court with a prayer for a direction to respondent No.2 for fixing a date of hearing in

the appeal. Vide order dated 25.1.2013, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the appeal filed by

the petitioner against the resumption order in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter, the

respondent Corporation filed CM No.6407 of 2013 in CWP No.1598 of 2013 with a prayer for recalling the order dated 25.1.2013 on the ground that

the appeal filed by the petitioner already stood rejected vide proceedings dated 28.3.2012, Annexure P.8 which were sent to the petitioner vide letter

dated 12.6.2012. The said application was allowed by this Court with Rs. 5000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioner. Hence the instant petition by the

petitioner impugning the order/proceeding dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by the appellate authority.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 wherein it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner had failed to deposit

any of the five installments towards the price of the plot as per the terms and conditions of allotment/agreement. Show cause notices were issued to

the petitioner on 17.3.2008, 31.10.2008, 12.2.2009, 24.6.2009 and 3.9.2009 but the petitioner did not respond to show cause. The petitioner had failed

to take physical possession of the plot. The petitioner was called for personal hearing on 6.1.2010 and 14.5.2010 but he did not turn up on any of these

dates. When the petitioner had filed appeal against the resumption order, he did not appear before the appellate authority inspite of being asked to

personally appear. The petitioner failed to implement the approved project within a period of three years i.e. upto 10.4.2010 from the date of offer of

possession. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Undisputedly, Plot No.241, measuring 450 square meters was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 11.4.2007 alongwith offer of

possession for setting up a project of manufacturing of home textiles, made-ups and fabrics. As per the terms of allotment/agreement, the allottee was

required to pay the balance 75% price of the plot in five six monthly installments due on

11.10.2007, 11.4.2008, 11.10.2008, 11.4.2009 and 11.10.2009. Further, the petitioner was required to implement the project within a period of three

years from the date of offer of possession i.e. upto 10.4.2010. The petitioner failed to deposit any of the five installments towards the price of the plot.

Consequently, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 17.3.2008, 31.10.2009, 24.6.2009 and 3.9.2009. The petitioner did not submit any

reply to the notices.

He was called for personal hearing on 6.1.2010 and 14.5.2010 but he did not appear. As a result, the plot was resumed on 6.7.2010 on account of

violation of terms and conditions of allotment. Even when the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority, he did not appear inspite of

opportunities being given. The appeal had already been dismissed when he filed a Civil Writ petition in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed

of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide his appeal. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation filed an application in the said writ petition stating

that the appeal filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed and the order had been conveyed to him.

Consequently, the said application filed by the respondent-corporation was allowed with Rs. 5000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioner. The appeal

filed by the petitioner against the resumption order was rightly dismissed by the authority below with the following observations:-

“2. The appellant had earlier been called for appearing before the Appellate Committee in its meeting held on 15.12.2010, when his Advocate had

appeared before the Committee and had requested that he may be allowed to represent the appellant. The Committee was of the view that the

appellant should also be present to explain his case and decided to defer the case to the next hearing. Accordingly, the appellant was called before the

Appellate Committee on 26.07.2011 and, being absent on that date, was again called for hearing on 01.02.2012.

None appeared before the Committee. The Committee observed that the allottee had failed in depositing the installments of the price of the plot

violating the terms and conditions of allotment and also did not put forward any explanation despite various opportunities granted by the Corporation

through show cause notices and personal hearing. The appellant has also not appeared before the Appellate Committee to present his case despite

various opportunities granted to him viz. 15.12.2010, 26.07.2011, 01.02.2012 & 28.03.2012. Therefore, finding that there was no merit in the appeal,

the Committee was of the view that the Corporation had rightly resumed the plot in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the allotment

of plot and decided to dismiss the sameâ€​.

Even before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any material on record to substantiate his claim or to show that the

order passed by the appellate authority was legally unsustainable.

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, finding

no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.