Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is member of the Armed Forces. On April 15, 1991, he applied for allotment of a plot to Haryana Urban Development Authority. On August 5, 1991 he was allotted plot No. 3119 -P, Sector 23, Sonepat. A copy of the letter of allotment has been produced as Annexure P -1. The petitioner was required to pay the price of Rs. 2,53,110/ -. 25% of the price had been paid before the issue of the letter of allotment. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,89,832/ - had to be paid in six annual installments. Interest @ 10% had to be paid on this amount. In case of delay, the interest was to be charged @ 18% per annum.
(2.) THE petitioner paid the entire price of the plot. Despite that the possession was not given to him. The petitioner was driven to surrender the plot and seek the refund of the amount. Since his request was not being accepted, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to accept the surrender and refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ 18%. The petitioner also claim damages. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred that in accordance with the terms of allotment, the possession had to be offered on completion of the development works. After the needful had been done, the petitioner was actually offered possession vide letter dated October 4, 2000. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure R -1 with the written statement. It has been further averred that Sector 23 has an area of 421.15 acres of land. It is a big Sector. Thus it took time.
(3.) MR . Manjit Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the action of the respondents in not offering the possession of the plot for a period of more than 9 years after the allotment is wholly arbitrary. The provision in Clause 7 of the letter of allotment does not empower the Authority to make the allottee wait till eternity. The possession has to be offered within a reasonable -time. The respondents have failed to give possession till the petitioner surrendered the plot. The petitioner's prayer, as made in the petition, should be accepted, he further submits that the costs of construction has risen considerably. The petitioner shall not be able to now construct the house on this plot. The counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in, 1999 CWP 11598 (B.L Gupta v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.) decided on November 13, 2000.;