Allowed

Dharmender Kumar v. HUDA etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Nov 2011CWP/12582/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging a resumption order due to alleged repayment defaults. Only a small amount was found outstanding, leading the court to set aside the Revisional Authority's order upon the petitioner's undertaking to pay the balance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Revisional Authority set aside; petitioner directed to deposit outstanding dues within one month.

Dharmender Kumar Vs HUDA etc. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

C.W.P. No. 12582 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 12582 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision:- 23.11.2011

Dharminder Kumar

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶15

¶16

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral).

¶17

On 3.4.2000 the petitioner was allotted commercial Booth No. 239, Sector 4, MDC Panchkula on free hold basis by the respondents for a tentative price of Rs. 2,79,000/-. After making payment of some installments the petitioner committed some default due to which the plot was ordered to be resumed on 17.3.2003 by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, and 10% of the total sale consideration was ordered to be forfeited. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the said appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the remaining outstanding amount within 30 days of the passing of the order. The petitioner paid almost the entire outstanding amount but there was some delay in making the payment in terms of the said order. The said

¶18

¶19

C.W.P. No. 12582 of 2009

¶20

order was challenged by the Estate Officer, HUDA Panchkula, before the Revisional Authority which was allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside.

¶21

Against that order the petitioner has filed the instant writ

¶22

petition.

¶23

On 19.8.2009 while issuing notice of motion, this Court passed the following order:

¶24

“It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount due, for the booth in question. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition against that order, which has now been allowed vide order dated 12.4.2005 (P3), without looking into a fact that in the meantime, the petitioner had paid the entire amount.

¶25

Notice of motion for 11.11.2009.

¶26

Operation of the resumption order shall remain stayed till further order.”

¶27

On October 18, 2011 during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire amount was paid and nothing was due. In view of that stand, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 were directed to place on record the calculation of the amount including interest, penalty due towards the petitioner.

¶28

In response to the said order today, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has placed on record the affidavit of the Estate Officer, HUDA Panchkula, declaring as under:

¶29

“2. That in compliance with the direction of this Hon'ble Court for filing an affidavit showing the total amount due, it is stated that as per the report of the accounts branch, dues as per HUDA policy outstanding upto

¶30

C.W.P. No. 12582 of 2009

¶31

¶32

30.11.2011 are Rs.9700/- subject to audit.”

¶33

According to the aforesaid affidavit only Rs.9700/- is due towards the petitioner upto 30.11.2011. In the affidavit it has not been stated that on what account this amount of Rs.9700/- is due against the petitioner. A total vague affidavit has been filed. However, counsel for petitioner with intention to resolve the dispute submits that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 9700/- and he will deposit the same with the Estate Officer, within one month from today.

¶34

In view of aforesaid fact and undertaking, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority is hereby set aside.

¶35

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶36

23.11.2011 reema

¶37

( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE

Dharmender Kumar v. HUDA etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmender Kumar v. HUDA etc.

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

Mohinder Singh and Anrs. Vs Gurjinder Kaur and Ors.

Balwant Singh & Ors. Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sujan Singh and Ors./ Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayat Pb. and Ors.

Dharamvir Vs State of Punjab & Ors.