- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-1) whereby plot No.1500-P, Sector 46, Gurgaon allotted to respondent No.3 vide allotment letter dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-2) and transferred in the name of petitioner vide order dated 27.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) has been ordered to be resumed.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No.3 was allotted a plot measuring 420 square meter bearing No.1500-P, Sector 46, Gurgaon and as per the allotment letter dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-2) the tentative price of the plot was fixed as Rs.7,31,808/-. The said allottee i.e. respondent No.3 decided to transfer the plot in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has granted permission for the transfer of plot in the favour of petitioner vide letter dated 27.9.1996 (Annexure P-3) subject to the laid down conditions. The petitioner submitted the requisite documents and the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 (original allottee) appeared before respondent No.2 on 30.9.1996 for completion of paper formalities required for such transfer. The petitioner felt satisfied that the plot in question has been transferred in her name and all the correspondence shall be made with her only. However, it was transpired that despite the aforesaid issuance of letter (Annexure P-3) dated 27.09.1996, respondents were still making correspondence with respondent No.3 (original allottee) and letter dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure P-7) was issued to respondent No.3 raising a demand for payment of additional charge on account of enhancement of land compensation to the tune of Rs.5,28,542/- and thereafter vide letter dated 20.3.2001 (Annexure P-8) possession was offered to respondent No.3 on any working day between 10 am to 12 am within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire outstanding amount at the time of grant of permission for transfer was paid. However, on account of non-deposit of amount as demanded vide letter dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure P-7), an order dated 15.2.2001 (Annexure P-9) was served upon respondent No.3 requiring him to pay Rs.8,94,446/- plus penalty of Rs.89,445/- imposed by virtue of power vested under Section 17(2) of the Act for non depositing the outstanding amount and for not attending the office on the date fixed. Still further a show cause notice dated 18.6.2001 (Annexure P-10) under Section 17(3) of the Act was served upon respondent No.3-Sushil Kumar Gaba asking him as to why an order of resumption of the site and/or building and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money be not made. It is the case of the petitioner that she was never served with any letter or notice despite the fact that respondent No.2 has issued permission of transfer of plot vide order dated 27.9.1996 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.2 in the second week of May 2003 to find out as to when the possession of the plot would be offered. The petitioner was shocked to know that the plot in question has been resumed way back on 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, which was allowed vide order dated 6.10.2005 (Annexure P- 4). However, respondent No.1 challenged the said order by way of appeal and the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) accepted the appeal and held that the complainant is not a consumer and dismissed the complaint. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-1), where the plot allotted to the petitioner has been resumed.
(3.) On notice having been issued, respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 have filed their respective replies. Respondents No.1 and 2 submit that the plot in question was originally allotted to respondent No.3-Sunil Kumar Gaba vide memo No.452 dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner has purchased the said plot from respondent No.3. The original allottee has moved an application for permission to transfer the plot in the name of the petitioner but re-allotment letter was not issued to the petitioner and the permission dated 27.9.1996 to transfer the plot in question to respondent No.3, earlier granted, automatically stood cancelled for not furnishing the indemnity bond signed by two witnesses, which was a pre-requisite condition as envisaged in condition No.7 in the permission to transfer issued vide memo No.5132 dated 27.9.1996 (Annexure P-3). This permission was required to be furnished by the original allottee i.e. respondent No.3 and in this manner the original allottee remained the allottee of the said plot. It has also been pleaded that respondents No.1 and 2 have served a show cause notice under Section 17(3) of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity 'the Act') upon respondent No.3 regarding the non-deposit of installments of the plot in question vide letter dated 18.6.2001 followed by another notice dated 30.1.2002 under Section 17(4) of the Act giving opportunity of personal hearing to respondent No.3. Since the original allottee i.e. respondent No.3 neither appeared before the authority nor deposited the due amount of the plot in question, the order of resumption of plot dated 15.7.2002 was passed. The respondents have further submitted that as permission of transfer the plot in favour of petitioner was granted subject to certain conditions but the same were not complied with. Hence, the application for transfer stood automatically cancelled.;