The respondents were not entitled to charge interest on the delayed payments of the installments without offering possession of the plot to the petitioner.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Short point involved in this petition is whether the respondents can charge interest on the delayed payment of instalments of auction price of Rs. 4.51 lakhs of the plot purchased by the petitioner from the respondents.

2. Petitioners assertain is that she along with Balwant Singh purchased plot No. 31(P) in residential-cum-commercial area, Mandi Township, Fatehabad, District Hisar, in an open auction at a sale price of Rs. 4.51 lakhs. Letter of allotment dated 24.2.1988 (Annexure P1) was issued to them in respect thereof. Out of the total sale price of the plot, Rs. 45,100/- were deposited by the petitioner at the time of bid and another sum of Rs. 67,650/- was deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of allotment (Annexure P1). After paying 25% of the total sale price of the said plot, the balance amount of Rs. 3,38,250/- was payable in six equal annual instalments. The first instalment was payable after the expiry of one year of the date of letter of allotment (Annexure P1). Each instalment was recoverable together with interest @ 10% per annum on the balance price of the plot. Petitioners contention is that she has already paid total amount of Rs. 3,38,250/-. The respondents, however, illegally, arbitrarily and with mala-fide intention initiated proceedings under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban development Authority Act, 1977 (in short the Act) to resume the plot in question on the ground of non-payment of interest. Respondent No. 3 passed the order (Annexure P2) dated 21.5.1996 for resumption of the plot although no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before the passing of that order. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.5.1997 (Annexure P3). Petitioners contention is that both the orders, Annexures P2 and P3, are patently illegal and liable to be quashed.

3. According to the petitioner, as per the terms of the allotment letter (Annexure P1), interest @ 10 per cent per annum on the balance sale price of the plot is recoverable only from the date of offer of possession which could be made only after developing the area but the respondents neither carried out the development nor was the possession offered to her and therefore, the impugned action is without jurisdiction. Hence, she has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued declaring the action of the respondent-authorities in charging interest on the delayed payments of the instalments without offering possession of plot in question as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and ultra vires the provisions of the Act as well as the terms of allotment letter (Annexure P1). She has also prayed that the respondents be directed to deliver the possession of the plot in question to her as she has paid the full price of the said plot.

4. Respondent No. 3 has filed written statement and has denied the relevant averments made in the writ petition. It is inter alia, averred therein that if the petitioner would have deposited the instalments within the time as mentioned in the allotment letter (Annexure P1), no interest would have been charged thereon, but as she failed to deposit the instalments within the stipulated time, respondent No. 3 is legally entitled to charge interest on the delayed payments as per the HUDA Rules and Regulations. It is clearly mentioned in column 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1) that the petitioner is bound to pay the instalments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is also pleaded that no interest on offer of possession was charged from the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to deposit the instalments within the stipulated time, the plot in question was resumed as per condition No. 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1). It is also pleaded that proper notices under Section 17(1), 17(2), 17(3) and 17(4) of the Act were issued to the petitioner,