- (1.) This order will dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar against a common order dated 10.9.2010 passed in a bunch of three writ petitions passed by the Learned single judge setting aside the resumption orders of separate properties but identical dated 12.8.2009 by the revisional authority under the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Act ordering resumption of shopping booths allotted to the petitioners in the District Shopping Centre, Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana. On having setting aside the orders of resumption the learned Single Judge has directed that the petitioners be put in possession of the booths. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in the set of three petitions had bid for shopping booths in open auction and being successful they were issued allotment letters in 1991. However, the condition of deposit of 10% earnest money at the time of allotment and 15% of the consideration amount to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letters was alone fulfilled. It is the common case that 25% of the consideration was deposited within the prescribed time. In all the three cases there was, however, default in payment of balance amount. The petitioners appear to have conveniently forgotten about their liability to pay the balance amount and it was only in 2006 that they woke up after they had an epiphany that it's time to pay the money back so they allege that they visited the office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jind and came to know that their plots had alas been resumed. In CWP No. 17171 of 2009 the plot was resumed on 13.2.2001. The resumption orders were in the circumstances obviously passed ex parte. The petitioners preferred appeals before the appellate authority under the HUDA Act praying for setting aside the resumption and for permission to pay the balance amount i.e. pending dues with interest, penalty etc. The appeals succeeded and an order dated 25.7.2007 was passed restoring the booths subject to payment of the entire outstanding amounts within one month together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- within 15 days of the communication of the order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners deposited the outstanding amount along with interest and penalty etc. as demanded within the prescribed time. After having accepted the outstanding amount from the petitioners the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jind filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department challenging the order of the Administrator, HUDA, passed in the appeals. The Revisional Authority allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Authority on the short ground of limitation. The Revisional Authority held that there was delay of six years in presenting the appeals and, therefore, the appeals were time barred. Against those orders the writ petitions were filed before this Court.
(2.) The case set up in the writ petitions against the order of Revisional Authority reviewing the appellate order is that the resumption was ex parte; the petitioners had no notice of resumption proceedings; the Estate Officer ought to have resorted to substituted service as prescribed in Clause 3 of Section 42(iii) of the HUDA Act, 1977 and it was not so done; that the order was passed at the back of the petitioners, therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice; the appellate authority was justified in accepting their appeals on payment of outstanding dues together with interest and penalty etc.; the appellate order stood complied with and nothing remained due; that the Revisional Authority was incorrect inasmuch as the period of limitation would commence from the date of knowledge of adverse order and not from the date of its passing, therefore, the appeals were not time barred. It was the further contention that the basic amenities had not been provided nor possession of the booths was delivered to the petitioners, therefore, they were under no obligation to deposit the further amounts according to the schedule of payment recited in the letter of allotment. The petitioners also relied upon photographs of the area showing that the area is water logged and with little infrastructure development.
(3.) Huda in its written statement before the writ Court denied the allegations. It further stated that development of the area was completed on 15.9.1998; possession was offered in 1998; and letters were sent by registered posts; HUDA produced evidence of dispatch of letters from the dispatch register maintained in the regular course of business; that HUDA issued notices under Section 17(2), 17(3) and ultimately under Section 17(4) of the Act were not responded to by the respondents leaving no room for HUDA except to adopt the course taken i.e. of resumption of the booths.;