Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 79
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal and G.S.Singhvi JJ.
C.L.Anand
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 11690 of 1997,
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1998
Authorities must exercise their powers to resume a plot under Section 17(3) and 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, in a fair and reasonable manner and must consider all relevant factors before taking a decision.
Headnote:
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1977 - SECTION 17(3) AND 17(4) - RESUMPTION OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT - CONDITIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION - VALIDITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND RESUMPTION ORDER - APPLICATION OF MIND BY AUTHORITIES - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was allotted an industrial plot by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1979. The allotment letter specified that the construction on the plot had to be completed within two years from the date of offer of possession. The petitioner took possession of the plot in July 1982 and was granted an extension of time to complete the construction. However, the construction was not completed within the extended period. HUDA issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in September 1992, alleging that he had committed a breach of the condition of sale by failing to complete the construction within the stipulated time. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice, stating that he had dug the foundation and was ready to start construction, but due to excessive rain, he had to postpone the work. HUDA resumed the plot in February 1993. The petitioner appealed to the Administrator, HUDA, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the resumption of the plot.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the show cause notice issued by HUDA was vague and did not state correct facts. The court also found that the order resuming the plot lacked application of mind and was passed in a routine manner. The court further held that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's plea that he was unable to complete the construction due to reasons beyond his control.
Issues: 1. Whether the show cause notice issued by HUDA was valid? 2. Whether the order resuming the plot was passed in accordance with the law? 3. Whether the authorities considered the petitioner's plea that he was unable to complete the construction due to reasons beyond his control?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the show cause notice was vague and did not state correct facts. The court also found that the order resuming the plot lacked application of mind and was passed in a routine manner. The court further held that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's plea that he was unable to complete the construction due to reasons beyond his control. The court relied on the provisions of Section 17(3) and 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, which empower HUDA to resume a plot if the allottee fails to complete the construction within the stipulated time. However, the court held that the authorities must exercise their powers under these provisions in a fair and reasonable manner and must consider all relevant factors before taking a decision.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the orders resuming the plot inoperative. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Estate Officer, HUDA, within 6 days and to deposit the arrears of extension fee and interest within the next two months. The court also directed the petitioner to complete the construction of the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan within the next six months. The court further directed that if the petitioner failed to abide by any of these conditions, the orders passed by the Estate Officer for resumption of the plot would become operative.
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
1. The petitioner has applied to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bahadurgarh (for short the Estate Officer) for allotment by sale of an industrial plot at Bahadurgarh He was allotted plot No. 562 measuring 227.50 sq. meter on the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. As per the terms and conditions, the balance amount of Rs. 3,750/- of the tentative price of the plot could be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days and the possession of the plot was to be offered on completion of development work. The petitioner was to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the site plan of the proposed building approved from the competent authority. Petitioners case is that on 25.5.1982 the Estate Officer issued a notice to show cause Under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 pointing out that he has failed to complete the construction within two years i.e. by 17.10.1981 and thus has committed breach of the agreement. Reply was filed by the petitioner mentioning that as yet he has not been given possession of the plot and, therefore, question of construction on the plot does not arise. Meanwhile on 26.7.1982 the petitioner was given possession of the plot. Notwithstanding the reply, the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner was resumed by the Estate Officer Under Section 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of resumption to the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. The appeal was accepted. The plot was restored to the petitioner on the condition that he will deposit Rs. 25,000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order and was to submit the building plans within three months and complete the construction within one year. The amount was deposited by the petitioner as directed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. On 16.5.90 the Estate Officer issued a recovery notice of extension of time for construction of industrial plot. The petitioner in accordance with the said notice deposited the amount of Rs. 2,047.50. The result was that on 14.7.1990 the petitioner was granted permission to erect the building and the period to this effect was extended upto 13.7.1992.
2. On 3.9.1992 a notice to show cause was issued by the Estate Officer Under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act pointing out that the petitioner has committed breach of condition of sale. Reply was submitted by the petitioner in which he pointed out that foundations of the plot has been dug, but due to excessive rain the construction has to be postponed. It was stated that since the period of sanctioned plan has expired, the petitioner requested the Estate Officer to inform if he could continue the construction work. No reply was received the petitioner was informed that he was liable to pay Rs. 152/- as revalidation fee and Rs. 568/- as extension fee. The Estate Officer on 5.2.1993 ordered resumption of the plot and further directed that the amount of Rs. 544/- out of the paid amount be forfeited. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, pointing out that he could not start construction due to non-availability of water at site and further that he intended to start construction and had dug the foundation at site but because of rain the work had to be postponed. The appeal was dismissed and the plot was resumed. A further revision was preferred by the petitioner which too failed.
3. By virtue of the present writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the show cause notice dated 3.9.1992 (Annexure P-11), the order resuming the plot and the subsequent orders of the Appellate Authority and that of the Revisional Authority, Annexures P-22 and P-23 respectively. The petitioner further seeks a direction that t
