Dismissed

Sonia etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012CWP/11690/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of Haryana rejected a writ petition challenging the resumption of a plot allotted in 1991 for non-payment of dues. The petitioners deposited the balance consideration in 2004 and later bought the plot from Sanjay Kumar. The Court held the resumption valid due to the long delay. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the resumption of the plot and revisional orders is dismissed.

Sonia etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.11690 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.11690 of 2011 Date of decision:- 14.02.2012

Sonia and others

....Petitioners

Vs.

State of Haryana & others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the State Government, exercising the revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority on 09.11.2004, whereby appeal against the order dated 29.03.1995 (Annexure P-1), was dismissed.

¶15

Jai Narain, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was allotted plot No.72, Sector 13, Karnal, on a total consideration of Rs.1,11,000/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the amount, but did not deposit any of the installments towards the remaining 75% of the sale consideration. A notice dated 25.01.1991 was served upon Jai Narain, directing him to deposit an amount of R.33,000/-, but only an amount of Rs.15,000/- was deposited on 21.03.1994. Thereafter, a resumption order was passed on 29.03.1995.

¶16

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Administrator,

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.11690 of 2011 2

¶18

HUDA, after 8 years. Learned Administrator did not find any ground to condone the delay of 8 years and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09.11.2004. Against the order passed by the Administrator, one Sanjay Kumar filed a revision on the strength of General Power of Attorney dated 18.11.2003 in pursuance of earlier agreement to sell dated 12.11.2003 on 10.01.2005, whereas the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed revision on 24.12.2007. Both the revisions were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and Town & Country Planning Department on 21.10.2009.

¶19

Learned Revisional Authority has reproduced the agreement executed by Jai Narain in favour of Sanjay Kumar on 12.11.2003 and also noticed the fact that it was Sanjay Kumar, who has deposited a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- through bank draft dated 12.01.2004 towards the dues standing against the booth. The Revisional Authority found that there was no justification for long delay of 8 years in filing of the appeal and that the order of resumption has been passed after providing full opportunity to the allottee.

¶20

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order of resumption order passed in appeal and in revision.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that since the petitioners have deposited the entire sale consideration in the year 2004, therefore, there is no reason to allow the resumption order to stand. It is also pointed out that such amount was deposited in pursuance of the order passed by the Administrator.

¶22

We do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any order passed

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No.11690 of 2011 3

¶24

by the Administrator permitting the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs.4,05,000/-, which was deposited vide draft dated 12.01.2004. Even if there is any such order, such interim order does not create any right in favour of the petitioner, more so when such amount has been deposited by the petitioner.

¶25

The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was served with a notice, calling upon him to deposit the balance amount in the year 1991. But, only part amount of Rs.15,000/- was deposited in the year 1994. On account of non payment of sale consideration, the plot was resumed in the year 1995. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners remained silent for 8 long years and has taken no step whatsoever, to seek setting aside of the resumption order. It was only after he entered into an agreement with Sanjay Kumar on 12.11.2003, an appeal was filed. In fact, the resumption proceedings are sought to be annulled by the purchaser of the property, who has purchased the property knowing fully well that the plot stands resumed.

¶26

The agreement, reproduced by the Revisional Authority shows that the parties are taking benefit of speculation in the market with a profiteering motive.

¶27

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶30

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE February 14, 2012 ajp

Sonia etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkesh Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dasa Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Arshad @ Bugga Vs State of Haryana

Om Lata Vs Housing Board Haryana and Anr.

Muga Devi Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Karamveer Arya Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority