- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure P-6), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order not extending the period for deposit of balance of 15% was dismissed.
(2.) Petitioner was allotted a residential plot at Kosli vide the letter of allotment dated 31.12.2008, on deposit of 10% of the tentative price. Petitioner has to deposit 15% of the tentative price to conclude the contract within 30 days of the said letter whereas the balance 75% could be deposited in lump sum without interest or in six yearly installments with interest. Petitioner has not deposited 15% of the initial amount.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Sandhya Jindal vs. State of Haryana,1996 3 PunLR 614, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the allotment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and ors, 2009 4 SCC 369, has held that the contract stands concluded on deposit of 15% of the initial amount. Since such amount has not been deposited, petitioner is not required to be provided with any opportunity of hearing. It was observed as under: - "19. While it is true that an allotment letter was issued to the appellant by the respondent-Authority, but the said allotment was subject to the conditions as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, some of which have been extracted hereinabove. In terms thereof the appellant was required to send a communication to the respondent-Authority by registered post that he is accepting the aforesaid allotment made in his favour along with an amount of Rs. 1,14,436/- within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. That amount was supposedly 15% of the price payable for the plot of land allotted to him. The said amount together with the amount of Rs. 65,392/- which was paid by the appellant-applicant along with his application form would, therefore, have constituted 25% of the total tentative price of the land. If the appellant refused to accept the offer of allotment he was required to communicate his refusal by a registered letter within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter failing which it was made clear that the aforesaid allotment would stand cancelled and that the earnest money deposited by him would be forfeited by the Authority and the appellant would have no claim for damages thereafter. 20. xxx xxx xxx 21. In our considered opinion the appellant failed to comply with the aforesaid clauses of the letter of allotment and, therefore, his allotment stood cancelled and the earnest money deposited by him could be forfeited by the Authority. The order of cancellation came to be passed by the competent authority after 500 days. Be that as it may, the aforesaid allotment of plot of land in favour of the appellant came to be cancelled because of non-payment of the amount as stipulated in clause 5 and, therefore, the earnest money deposited by him could be forfeited by the Authority." Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as The Estate Officer HUDA and ors vs. Mahesh Kumar, 2010 1 RCR(Civ) 578 to contend that the delay beyond control of an allottee can always be condoned in genuine cases, subject to additional charges being paid by the allottee. Even, the said judgment does not provide any help to learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. The judgment in Chaman Lal Singhal's case has not been brought to the notice of the Bench. Since, the petitioner has not deposited the initial amount pre-requisite for a binding contract, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the authorities. Even, if any officer has condoned the delay and permitted an allottee to deposit the amount, will not confer any right to the petitioner. It is well settled that there cannot be any discrimination in an illegality committed. Dismissed.;