Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT, R.P. NAGRATH, JJ.
Shish Pal and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No. 9915 of 2011
Decided on : 2.7.2012
Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Devki Anand, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. DV Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6.
Adherence to payment schedules and lack of bona fide intention in belated offers.
Headnote:
Resumption - HUDA Allotment Dispute - HUDA Act, 1977, Section 17 - Summary: The court discussed the petitioners' failure to deposit due instalments as per the allotment letter, the show cause notices issued by HUDA, and the conditional order allowing the petitioners to clear outstanding dues. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to payment schedules and the lack of bona fide intention in the petitioners' belated offer to pay the dues. The court found no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of an order passed by HUDA, resuming a site purchased by them in an open auction after failing to deposit due instalments as per the allotment letter. The petitioners also appealed against the resumption order, which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to adhere to the payment schedule despite show cause notices and the conditional order allowing them to clear outstanding dues. The court emphasized the lack of bona fide intention in the petitioners' belated offer to pay the dues.
Issues: Failure to deposit due instalments, show cause notices, interpretation of HUDA Act, 1977, and adherence to payment schedule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to payment schedules and found no convincing explanation for the petitioners' failure to deposit even the principal amount. The lack of bona fide intention in the petitioners' belated offer was also highlighted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' plea, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by HUDA, resuming the site SCF No. 6, Sector-15, Panchkula, purchased by them in an open auction. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dismissing their appeal against the aforesaid resumption order.
2. The petitioners being the highest bidders were allotted the subject site by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula vide allotment letter No. 4524 dated 20.4.1989 (Annexure P-1) on the stipulated terms and conditions, some of which being relevant are reproduced below:
“21. All payment shall be made by means of the demand draft payable to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula draw on any scheduled bank situated at Panchkula.
22. No separate notice will be sent for payment of instalments. However, (illegible)ation regarding the instalment the amount, the due date etc. may be sent (illegible) of courtesy.
Half yearly instalments of Rs. as under will fall due on 20th April to 20th October every year, as under:-
Sr. Due date principal Interest Total
No.
1 20.10.89 93796.88 75037.52 168834.4
2 20.4.90 93796.88 65657.83 159484.71
3 20.10.90 93796.88 56278.14 150075.09
4 20.4.91 93796.88 46898.45 140695.33
5 20.10.91 93796.88 37518.76 131315.64
6 20.4.92 93796.88 28139.07 121935.95
7 20.10.92 93796.88 18759.38 112556.26
8 20.4.93 93796.88 9379.69 103176.57
(emphasis applied) 3. Since the petitioners failed to deposit the due instalments, HUDA issued show cause notices under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and thereafter resumed the site. The aggrieved petitioners preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 6.9.2000. Still aggrieved, they preferred revision petition before the State Government, which was allowed conditionally vide order dated 3.12.2001 (Annexure P-8), the operative part whereof reads as under:
“I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted fact that the allottees have failed to deposit the price of the site as per the given schedule. However they have occupied the building on the site without prior permission. The parties have not paid the principal amount as yet. Hence their arguments about quantum of interest on delayed payment is irrelevant at this stage. However keeping in mind the assurance of prompt payment of all the dues, I give them a chance with the condition that outstanding dues along with interest as per policy of HUDA are to be deposited by the petitioners within three months from the date so conveyed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, within the given time, resumption order passed by the administrator on 06.09.2000 would prevail without any further (illegible) to the petitioner.”
(emphasis by us) 4. In compliance to the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the Estate Officer, Panchkula, vide notice dated 1.1.2002 (Annexure P-9) raised a demand of ` 28,24,700/- to b deposited by the petitioners within a period of three months. The petitioners however, did not pay the aforesaid amount and disputed the claim raised by the Estate Officer. Their counsel sent reply dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure P-10) claiming that about ` 16 lacs had already been deposited by the petitioners which was not accounted for and the demand was based upon wrong calculation. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, vide second memo dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure P-11) informed the petitioners that their account was again checked and after adjusting the amount deposited in November, 2000 and on 3rd January, 2001, a sum of ` 20,65,485/- was due towards them.
5. The petitioners, however, chose not to make any payment pursuant to the aforesaid or subsequent notices issued to them. Consequently, the resumption order passed against them revived.
6. The petitioners thereafter resorted to another round of litigation and instituted a Civil Suit in the Civil Courts at Panchkula. Their suit was dismissed. On an appeal preferred by them, th
