Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) SHOULD the Petitioner who has not paid the amount of Rs. 4,87,734/ - levied by way of penalty be held entitled to the refund of this amount despite the fact that the payment was actually made by the subsequent transferee viz. Respondent No. 4? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this petition may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE Haryana Urban Development Authority issued an advertisement for the auction of plots at Gurgaon. This auction was actually held on May 30, 1995. The Petitioner was the highest bidder for the Shop -Cum -Office Site No. 33, Sector 14, Gurgaon. Its bid of Rs. 52.56 lacs was accepted. The Petitioner had to make a deposit of 25% of the amount within a period of 30 days. There was default in the making of this deposit. Ultimately, the Petitioner made the deposit of a total amount of Rs. 18,67,311.20. On June 12,1995, the Petitioner was served with a notice to show cause at to why it be not directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 48,77,342/ - alongwith interest etc. within 30 days. The Petitioner submitted no reply. Ultimately, vide order dated September 29, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 13 with the writ petition, the Estate Officer directed that the amount alongwith a penalty of Rs. 4,87,734/ - shall be paid within 20 days. However, it did not make the deposit. On the contrary, it entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 4 for the sale of the site. Respondent No. 4 got permission from the Haryana Urban Development Authority for purchase of the site. In pursuance to the decision of the Authority, the fourth Respondent paid an amount of Rs. 56,06,776.35 to the Authority. It also paid to the Petitioner the total amount of Rs. 18,67,311.20 deposited by it. It is the admitted position that the amount which had to be paid by the Petitioner by way of penalty viz. Rs. 4,87,734/ - had in fact been paid by the fourth Respondent.
(3.) THE Petitioner's appeal against the order dated September 29,1998 was accepted by the Administration vide order dated nil. A copy of this order has, however, been produced as Annexure P. 15 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the Authority filed a revision before the Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department. This appeal was accepted vide order dated August 30, 1999. It was held that "since the ownership of the plot was changed during the pendency of the appeal before the Administrator, the subsequent owner should have been substituted for the original owner and, therefore, the impugned order is not in order and it deserves to be struck down..." Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.;