Allowed

Chhotey Lal v. Estate Officer HUDA and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2008CWP/12370/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the resumption of an allotted HUDA booth due to alleged default, the High Court held that since the petitioner had paid the full sale consideration and the booth was his livelihood, the basis for resumption disappeared. The writ was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed, with a precautionary clarification regarding any potential remaining dues. Quality is thin

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 16.3.1990 and 28.5.1990 were quashed. The petitioner is liable to pay any remaining sale consideration if a notice to that effect is duly sent.

Chhotey Lal Vs Estate Officer HUDA and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.12370 of 1990

¶2

-: 1 :-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.12370 of 1990 Date of decision: December 5, 2008.

¶5

Chhotey Lal (dead by LRs)

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

¶8

Estate Officer, HUDA & Anr.

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Jaswinder Kumar Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

None for the respondents.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):

¶18

This civil writ petition is directed against the orders dated 16.3.1990 (Annexure P-2) and 28.5.1990 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Estate Officer and the Administrator respectively of the Haryana Urban Development Authority at Faridabad whereby allotment of booth No.55, Sector 16, Faridabad, allotted to the petitioner on 18.6.1985, has been cancelled and the same been resumed and the appeal against the resumption order has also been dismissed.

¶19

The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was

¶20

CWP No.12370 of 1990 -: 2 :-

¶21

the highest bidder in an open auction for allotment of booth No.55 in Sector 16, Faridabad which was allotted to him for a sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. The petitioner paid Rs.16,000/- as bid amount at the fall of hammer, followed by another payment of Rs.24,000/- on 19.7.1985, Rs.2,000/- on 15.5.1986 and Rs.3,000/- on 11.11.1986.

¶22

The petitioner thereafter admittedly defaulted in depositing the installments as a result of which the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, passed the impugned order dated 16.3.1990 (Annexure P-2) whereby the subject booth was resumed for nonpayment of Rs.1,35,420/- by the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, inter-alia , on the ground that the booth was resumed without following the statutory procedure as no notice under section 17(1) of the Act was served upon him. It also appears that the petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit the balance amount of the sale consideration. The aforesaid pleas, however, did not find favour with the Appellate Authority which dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 28.5.1990 (Annexure P- 4).

¶24

Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶25

It may be noticed here that while issuing notice to the respondents, the motion bench passed the following order on 13.9.1990:-

¶26

“Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that his client is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- within a month subject to the decision of the writ petition.

¶27

Notice of motion for 23.10.1990, on which date the

¶28

CWP No.12370 of 1990 -: 3 :-

¶29

petitioner shall bring the aforesaid amount in the court. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 28.5.1990 despatched on 20.7.1990 Annexure P/4 shall remain stayed.”

¶30

Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted on 6.3.1991, the following order was passed:-

¶31

“Service is complete. No body is present on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

Admitted. The petitioner is directed to deposit the draft bearing No.037067 dated 22.10.1990 for a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- with the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad within a fortnight from today failing which the stay order granted on 13.9.1990 shall stand vacated.”

¶33

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in deference to the above reproduced orders passed by this Court, the amount of Rs.1,36,000/- was deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time. He states that nothing remains due from the petitioner.

¶34

No one appears on behalf of the respondents. No written statement has been filed. The aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, thus, remains uncontroverted.

¶35

Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the subject booth from the last more than 20 years which appears to be his source of livelihood and the fact that he has already paid the entire sale consideration, I am of the view that the very basis of the resumption proceedings has disappeared.

¶36

It is otherwise well settled that the resumption proceedings

¶37

CWP No.12370 of 1990

¶38

-: 4 :-

¶39

should be the last resort in such like cases.

¶40

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 16.3.1990 (Annexure P-2) and 28.5.1990 (Annexure P-4) are hereby quashed. However, as an abundant precaution, it is clarified that in case anything still remains payable by the petitioner towards the full and final sale consideration of the subject booth, the respondents shall be entitled to send a notice to that effect to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be liable to pay the said amount subject, however, to his right to dispute the said liability.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

December 05, 2008. kadyan

¶43

[ Surya Kant ] Judge

Chhotey Lal v. Estate Officer HUDA and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotey Lal v. Estate Officer HUDA and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshni Devi etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Gram Panchayat Anwal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Maini Vs Amrik Singh Khatkar

Munsha Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Roop Chand Chopra Vs State of Haryana and Anr.