Veer Bhan vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner impugns the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-5) whereby the residential Plot No. 1488, Sector-23, Sonepat, was resumed and the appeal and revision petition preferred against the order have been dismissed. The undisputed facts are that the above-stated plot was allotted to the petitioner on 20.08.1991. It appears that he deposited 30% of the allotment price but thereafter no installment was paid. Several notices were issued to him under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and finding no response, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat vide order dated 29.01.1996 (Annexure P-1) resumed the site. The petitioner filed an appeal under the Act. The Appellate Authority took a lenient view and restored the plot vide order dated 12.02.1998 subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 1,03,775/- within 90 days.

The petitioner did not deposit the above-stated amount and sat at home. After almost 10 years, he filed a revision petition before the State Government on 14.01.2008 which was dismissed on 11.09.2012. The above-stated revisional order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWP No. 3170 of 2013 in which the respondents made a statement that the order passed by the Revisional Authority may be set-aside and the matter be remanded for reconsideration.

Thereafter, the Revisional Authority has passed an elaborate order dated 18.03.2014 rejecting the petitioner''s revision petition.

The petitioner gave two explanations for not depositing the due installments. Firstly, he urged that he fell ill and was hospitalized on 24.6.1996 and secondly, he is said to have spent huge amount on his treatment due to which there were financial constraints. Both the explanations, in our considered view, are after thought and without any substance. Much after the alleged hospitalization in June, 1996, the Appellate Authority came to the petitioner''s rescue and restored the site vide order dated 12.02.1998. The petitioner did not avail the benefit of that order. Not only this, he did not bother to approach any forum for almost ten years and thus, allowed the grass to grow under his feet. The plea that the installments could not be deposited due to financial crises, cannot be accepted as the authorities like the respondent-HUDA who have allotted the plot, cannot continue with the regulated development on mere assurances. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out.

Dismissed.