SARVAN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case revolves around the oustee policy floated by the Haryana Government. Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Banwari Lal, since deceased, was owner of 400 sq. yrds. The said land was acquired by the Opposite Parties, namely- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula-OP-1, Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon-P-2 and Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rewari-OP-3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar during his life time moved an application for allotment of 10 Marlas plot on the basis of the fact that he was entitled to that under the HUDA "oustee policy". As per HUDA oustee policy, Radjesh Kumar was entitled only for allotment of plot of 50 sq. yards. However his application was considered for allotment of plot under the General category. He was accordingly allotted plot No. 980 of 10 Marlas in Sector I, Part I, Urban Estate, Naurnaul vide allotment dated 18.08.2000.

(2.) Sh. Rajesh Kumar failed to deposit Rs. 37525/- towards 15% of the price of plot within the requisite period of 30 days from the date of issue of letter dated 17.08.2000. Consequently, his plot was cancelled by the OPs. Sh. Rajesh Kumar also passed away on 12.06.2000 prior to issuance of letter dated 17.08.2000 or cancellation of plot. The case was filed by his predecessor Smt. Sarvan Devi, his mother.

(3.) The averments made by Smt. Sarvan are these. She was not called by the OPs to pay 15% amount and to face cancellation of the allotment. No letter was ever issued to Rajesh Kumar or the complainant and forfeiture of the 10% amount already paid. She contended that Sh. Rajesh Kumar and his family members were not aware of the said letter. The plot was, however, cancelled on 22.03.2004. When it was not withdrawn, the legal notice was sent on 20.04.2004 to the OPs. A revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner to the Government of Haryana, Town & County Planning Department Chandigarh, wherein vide order dated 09.09.2005, the case was remanded back to Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, to find out the reality as to why such a long time was taken by the Estate Officer when the Plot No. 1852 was earmarked in favour of the allottee. The Financial Commissioner to the Govt. of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh also directed the Estate Officer HUDA to consider the claim of the complainant under oustees category as per HUDA Rules/Policy. The Financial Commissioner to the Govt. of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, however, upheld the cancellation of 10 Marla plot in General Category due to non-deposit of 15% amount.