Roshan Lal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioner was allotted a residential plot bearing No. 183, Model Town, Urban Estate, Kaithal, by the New Mandi Township, Haryana, in an open auction held on 16.1.1980 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. The allotment letter was issued on 30.4.1980 (Annexure P-1). According to condition No. 11 of the said allotment letter, the allottee was to complete the building within two years from the date of issue of the allotment letter. There was further stipulation in condition 19 that if any of the conditions of the allotment letter is not complied with or the plot is not constructed within the time specified, the plot will be resumed. The date of allotment letter was the date of offer of possession and there was no requirement of separate offer of possession. Undisputedly, in the year 1987, New Mandi Township, Haryana, merged with the Haryana Urban Development Authority, and the Rules and Regulations of the HUDA became applicable to the allottees of the plots allotted by the New Mandi Township, Haryana.

When the petitioner did not raise construction over the plot in question within the stipulated time and also failed to pay the extension fee, as applicable under the Rules and Regulations of the HUDA, show cause notices dated 6.10.1988, 16.7.1990, 1.7.1994 and 2.6.1999, were issued to the petitioner requesting him to deposit extension fee as per the HUDA policy.

It is an admitted fact that in response to those notices, the petitioner neither deposited any amount towards the extension fee nor raised any construction over the plot in question. Ultimately, by making application, the petitioner got actual physical possession of the plot in question on 12.12.2006, by measuring the plot. Thereafter, he moved an application for sanction of the building plan. However, the building plan was not sanctioned, as the petitioner did not clear arrears of the extension fee. When show cause notice dated 6.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) u/s 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, was issued to the petitioner for resumption of the plot in question, he challenged the same by filing the instant writ petition.

During the pendency of this petition, the respondents have placed on record calculation (Annexure R-1) along with the written statement, showing the extension fee regarding the plot in question from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.2007 and the surcharge from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2012, total amounting to Rs. 1,59,805/-, which is outstanding against the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that as per the terms of the allotment as well as Rules and Regulations of the HUDA, the petitioner was required to raise construction within two years from the date of offer of possession of the plot in question. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did not raise construction within the said stipulated time. His only contention is that in this case, the date of offer of possession should be taken as 12.12.2006, when the actual physical possession of the plot was taken by him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner never approached the respondents for taking possession of the plot, which was already offered to him at the time of issuance of the allotment letter dated 30.4.1980. It has also been contended that some neighbours of the petitioner had already raised construction in the year 1990, but the petitioner never approached the respondents to get the plot measured.

In our opinion, the date of 12.12.2006, when the petitioner got the plot measured and took actual physical possession of the same, is not the date of offer of possession, which is to be reckoned for extension fee. We have reached to this conclusion in view of the fact that when the show causes were issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 6.10.1988, 16.7.1990, 1.7.1994 and 2.6.1999, he never responded to the respondents that the actual physical possession of the plot was not delivered to him or the area has not been developed. For the first time, he took this plea in the instant petition, which appears to be false. According to the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act, the aforesaid notices sent to the petitioner on his correct address are deemed to have been served.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount, as shown in Annexure R-1. He submits that the respondents be directed that on payment of the said amount by the petitioner, his building plan be sanctioned, so that he can raise construction. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in view of the new policy of the HUDA, which has been notified on 12.4.2013, now the plot cannot be resumed on account of non-construction within the stipulated time, as in the new policy, there is no upper limit of time within which the allottee is required to complete the minimum required construction. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioners make payment of the extension fee, his building plan will be sanctioned immediately. In view of the above, if the petitioner makes payment of the extension fee, as mentioned in Annexure R-1, within a period of one month from today, the respondents are directed to sanction the building plan of the petitioner within a period of two months of making the payment by him, and if the petitioner completes the construction on the plot in question within one year of the sanction of the building plan, then no further extension fee be charged from him.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.