Shanti Lal Sethia vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2103

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Shanti Lal Sethia – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CM NO. 12736-CWP of 2023 IN/AND CWP NO. 7144 of 20
Decided On : 24-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate; For the Appellant.
Mr. Arun Beniwal, D.A.G., Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Quashing of communications and orders regarding plot transfer - Claim by petitioner to transfer plot rejected due to non-compliance with conditions stipulated by HUDA - Petitioner failed to establish legal right to the plot as original allotment not transferred in his favor - Conditions for construction and production not fulfilled - Dismissal of petition affirmed. (Paras 1, 2, 18, 19)

(B) Transfer of Allotment - Conditions imposed by regulatory authority must be adhered to - Non-compliance with such conditions results in resumption of allotment as per provisions of the HUDA Act. (Paras 10, 12, 18)

(C) Legal Rights - A transferee cannot claim rights unless all formalities and legal processes for transfer are duly completed. (Paras 8, 19)

Table of Content
1. petition filed under article 226 for plot transfer. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's case regarding the plot's transfer. (Para 3)
3. petitioner's compliance issues with various orders. (Para 4)
4. petitioner's argument on non-approval of site plan causing inability to comply. (Para 5)
5. court considers parties' submissions. (Para 6)
6. petitioner's lack of legal standing discussed. (Para 7 , 8)
7. failure of petitioner to show required documentation. (Para 9)
8. procedural compliance before resumption order. (Para 10 , 11)
9. court reaffirms resumption order and petitioner's non-compliance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
10. review of prior compliance conditions and failure thereof. (Para 16)
11. petitioner's lack of construction compliance. (Para 17 , 18)
12. final decision on lack of legal rights. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

CM-12736-CWP-2023

This application has been filed for fixing actual date of hearing in the main case, which is on regular Board at serial No. 399.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Hearing of the main case is pre-poned to today itself.

CWP-7144-2003 (O&M)

The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing communications and orders Annexures P-6, P-15, P-16, P-27, P-29, P-35 and P-36 and seeking a writ in the nature of 'mandamus' directing the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (respondent No. 3) to issue a transfer letter in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. 410, Industrial Area Phase-I, Panchkula (Haryana).

2. The petitioner has challenged the letter, dated 18.12.1995 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Project Manager, District Industries Centre, Panchkula, to the Estate Officer (respondent No. 3), whereby apart from seeking a guarantee, the transfer of the plot was ordered to be allowed subject to the condition that building be completed by 30.06.1996 and further a guarantee was sought and condition was put to start production before 31.12.1996. The challenge has also been made to the resumption order, dated 08.08.1997 (Annexure P-15) and the conditional order of the Chief Administrator, HUDA passed in appeal on 17.03.1998 (Annexure P-16). Further challenge has also been made to the order dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure P-27), whereby the appeal against the order of resumption was dismissed, as well as against the order dated 10.04.2001 (Annexure P-29) whereby conditions were imposed to deposit all the outstanding dues within 15 days and to start production at the site within a period of 06 months while allowing the revision petition, whereby the order of resumption was set aside. Challenge has also been made to the office order, dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-35), whereby resumption order dated 08.08.1997 (Annexre P-15) was ordered to be revived, on account of the non-compliance of the conditions in the order dated 10.04.2001 (Annexure P-29) passed in revision. The challenge has also been made to the issuance of the notice dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure P-36) under Section 18 (2) of the Act, whereby a direction was given to the petitioner to vacate the possession of the plot in question.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Plot No. 410 was originally allotted to Sh. Gulshan Rai Mehta, vide allotment letter dated 29.02.1980. The petitioner purchased the said plot and applied for transfer of the plot in his favour through a General Power of Attorney of the original allottee and deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as extension fee and Rs. 5,000/- as transfer fee, vide proforma application, dated 14.02.1991 (Annexure P-1).

3.1. The petitioner received a communication from the Estate Officer, HUDA (respondent No. 3) to complete the paper formalities vide letter dated 16.03.1995 (Annexure P-3), as such, the petitioner submitted the requisite documents vide letter dated 23.06.1995 (Annexure P-4). The request of the petitioner was referred to the General Manager, Industries and the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document