Resumption of property must be justified with clear reasoning and due process; it should be a last resort after all recovery efforts fail.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Being the highest bidder, built up Booth No. 110, Sector-55, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the disputed booth) was allotted to the petitioner on 05.11.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,70,000/- (rupees nine lakhs seventy thousand). Since the petitioner defaulted and did not make payments in time, the disputed booth was resumed vide order dated 26.05.2004 (Annexure P-3). Appeal against the said order was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P-16) and the resumption order was set aside. However, a revision petition was preferred by the respondents against the said order which was allowed on 16.05.2017 setting aside the appellate order and restoring the order of resumption. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The case set out by the petitioner is that he had already deposited 35.92% of the total sale consideration when the disputed booth was resumed and that the resumption was ordered in a mechanical manner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to present his case for at no point of time was any show-cause notice served upon the petitioner. It has been averred that even after the order of resumption having been passed, no eviction proceedings were initiated which could have been an indication to the petitioner that the disputed booth had been resumed. It has been averred that it is well settled that resumption is a very harsh action and should be the last resort when all other efforts to recover the outstanding amount have failed.

2. It has also been averred that even with regard to hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of resumption, no intimation was given to the petitioner nor was he informed that the appeal had been dismissed in default. On the contrary, a demand was raised from the petitioner which led to the petitioner depositing Rs. 11,98,000/which was duly accepted and encashed by the respondents but was subsequently refunded in an arbitrary manner.

3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In the written statement, it has been averred that 25% of the total sale consideration was paid by the petitioner in time. The balance 75%, as per Clause No.5 of the allotment letter, was required to be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in ten half yearly installments along with interest @ 15% per annum. The amount to be paid qua each installment was specified in the allotment letter itself in i.e. Clause 23 thereof. It was also specified that in case of delay in payments, interest would be charged @ 18% per annum. Possession of the disputed booth was delivered to the petitioner on 23.01.2001 (Annexure R-2). Since the petitioner failed to make the payment of installments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and not even a single installment was paid by him, show-cause notices under Section 17(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Act 1977 (for short the 1977 Act') (Annexure R-3) colly, were issued on 18.02.2002, 27.03.2002, 29.04.2002, 04.06.2002 & 05.08.2002. Despite issuance of the notices (ibid), the outstanding amount was not paid as a result of which the disputed booth was resumed on 26.05.2004. The appeal filed by the petitioner was initially dismissed in default on 21.12.2004 (Annexure R-4). He filed another appeal against the resumption order in 2011, which was also dismissed on 03.05.2011 (Annexure R-5). He then preferred CWP No. 704 of 2012, which was disposed of on 15.10.2021 with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal on merits. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.03.2014, the appeal was decided on merits and the resumption order was set aside. However, revision petition was preferred by the respondents, which was allowed on 16.05.2017. On merits also, a similar stand has been taken.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were duly heard