HUDA--Order of Resumption--Order is required to be challenged within a period of three years from the date of the order

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.:- The defendant-appellant is in the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise in the present case:-

1. Whether in the absence of any finding, either with respect to violation of the principles of natural justice or the mandatory procedure laid down in the Act or the Rules, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to examine the validity of the order of resumption in view of the bar created under Section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short “the Act of 1977”) shall stand excluded/barred?

2. Whether an order passed by the authority under Section 17 of the Act of 1977 is required to be challenged by the aggrieved person within a period of three years from the date of the order?

The defendant-appellant invited general public to participate in the auction of the commercial sites. In the advertisement, the main terms and conditions of the auction were given, which are extracted as under:-

“1. 10% of the money shall be payable at the fall of hammer in cash or by bank Draft in favour of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula.

2. Another 15% shall be payable within 30 days from the acceptance of the bid.

3. Balance 75% either in lump-sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in 10 half yearly equal instalments in case of built up booths sites and 8 half yearly equal instalments in case of show room sites/S.O.F. sites with 10% interest.

4. The Presiding Officer reserves the right to withdraw any property from auction or reject any bid without assigning any reason.

5. Detailed terms and conditions of auction/sale will be announced at the time of auction.

6. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula may be contacted for any further details and site plan etc.”

3. The plaintiff-respondents were declared highest bidder at Rs.3,32,000/- with respect to the property i.e. Booth site No.81, Sector-11, Panchkula in a public auction held on 31.05.1988. The plaintiff-respondents deposited a sum of Rs.33,200/- being 10% of the total sale consideration on the same day. The offer made by the plaintiffs in the public auction was accepted and allotment letter was issued to the plaintiffs-respondents on 15.06.1988. The plaintiffs were required to further deposit Rs.49,800/- in order to complete the payment of 25% of the price of the plot within 30 days. The amount is alleged to have been deposited within the aforesaid time. As per the allotment letter, the plaintiffs-respondents had two options, either to deposit the balance price in lump sum without any interest or deposit the remaining amount in 10 half yearly installments alongwith interest.

4. As per the allotment letter, each half yearly installment were due and payable on 15th December and 15th June, every year. The relevant part of the allotment letter is extracted as under:-

“23. Half yearly instalments as below will fall due on 15 Dec. & 15th June every year, as under:-

24. Possession of the site is hereby offered.

Sd/-Estate Officer

HUDA, Panchkula”

Thus, the first installment fell due on 15.12.1988 and second installment fell due on 15.06.1989 and thus similarly in the subsequent years also. The plaintiffs deposited following amounts:-