Suresh Chander vs Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, VIKRAM AGGARWAL, JJ.
Suresh Chander – Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.4940 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate; For the Petitioner

Headnote:(A) Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 - Resumption of plot - The petitioner challenged the resumption of plot No.184, affirming the necessity of timely payments as per allotment terms. The court emphasized that resumption should be a last resort and that persistent delay in payments justified the resumption. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - The authority's discretion in financial matters is upheld unless there is a clear illegality or arbitrariness in decision-making. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner acquired a residential plot but failed to make payments as stipulate, leading to its resumption after multiple notices issued for unpaid dues, culminating in a resumption order dated 12.12.2017.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims of unfair treatment, asserting adherence to the terms of the re-allotment letter and validating the resumption based on financial default.

Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities acted unlawfully and whether the delays justified resumption of the plot.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resumption of the plot was legitimate given the persistent payment defaults by the petitioner, who neglected to comply with payment obligations while seeking remedy only after the value of the plot increased.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of plot resumption and payment obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's analysis of payment defaults and legal obligations. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. resumption should be a last resort. (Para 5)
4. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-10), vide which plot No.184, Urban Estate, Sector-3 Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot') was resumed, order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P-15) vide which appeal against the resumption order was dismissed and order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-17) vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Appellate Authority was dismissed.

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the plot was initially allotted to one Virender Gupta vide allotment letter dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P-1). The total tentative cost was Rs. 11,27,304/- @ Rs. 6800/- per square meter. 10% of the amount was to be initially deposited and 15% was to be deposited within 30 days. The balance 75% was to be deposited either in lump sum or in six annual installments. The plot was purchased by the petitioner and re-allotment letter dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) was issued. The petitioner was supposed to pay six annual installments of Rs. 1,40,913/- each w.e.f 04.08.2010 to 04.08.2015. The petitioner deposited Rs. 1,41,000/- on 20.10.2010. In 2011, enhanced cost @ Rs. 2,971.82/- per sq. meter was demanded, taking the total enhanced amount to Rs. 4,92,668/- which was to be paid either in lump sum or in five installments with 15% interest. On 01.08.2013, a show-cause-notice (Annexure P-6) was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,54,688/- due towards him. Another show-cause-notice dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure P-7) under Section 17 (3) of the HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1977 (now HSVP Act 1977) (hereinafter referred to as 1977 Act') was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,04,784.55/- which was pending up to 04.09.2017 along with extension fee of Rs. 19,687/-. It was stated that in case of failure to pay, resumption order would be passed. Another notice dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) was issued. Opportunity of hearing was granted on 30.11.2017 in which the petitioner stated that he was facing financial hardship. However, vide order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-10), the order of resumption was passed. Appeal was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-17). Revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 10.08.02022.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are illegal and that the petitioner had not been able pay the dues on account of his financial condition. It has been averred that the petitioner is willing to deposit the dues calculated by the respondents along with penalty and extension fee, but still authorities have not considered his request.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

5. Learned counsel has submitted that the orders passed by the authorities are illegal and arbitrary. It has been contended that it is settled law that resumption should be the last resort and where the petitioner is willing to pay all the dues, an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner so that he does not lose the plot. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Green S. Jacob and another v. HUDA and another, Civil Appeal No. 7890 of 2011 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34408 of 2010), decided on 15.09.2011 and has submitted that the said judgment covers the case of the petitioner.

6. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but are unable to agree with the same. The plot was initially allotted to one Virender Gupta vide allotment letter dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P-1). The tentative price was Rs. 11,27,304/-. Rs. 110200/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document