Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to a communication/order dated 27.5.2014 demanding a sum of Rs. 19,54,31,272/ - along with the penalty of Rs. 1,95,43,127/ - (Annexure P. 1), on account of non payment of enhanced/additional price. Challenge in the writ petition is also to the show cause notice dated 31.7.2014 calling upon the petitioner as to why the order of resumption be not passed.
(2.) THE petitioner was allotted the land measuring 8.30 acres vide letter of allotment dated 15.2.2006 (Annexure P. 6) for a tentative price of Rs. 16,06,88,000/ -. Subsequently, the land was demarcated at the time of handing over possession as 8.12 acres. The price for the allotted land was fixed at Rs. 15,72,03,200/ -. A Deed of Conveyance was executed on 19.7.2007. The petitioner received two notices dated 22.1.2013 (Annexure P. 9 and P. 10) demanding additional price of Rs. 13,09,03,207/ - and Rs. 6,91,41,669/ - respectively. Another notice dated 29.11.2013 was issued to the petitioner for payment of additional price of Rs. 18,33,79,960/ -. Thereafter, on 21.1.2014 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why penalty of Rs. 1,95,43,127/ - be not imposed upon the petitioner for default of payment of Rs. 19,54,31,272/ -. The petitioner submitted reply but a demand was raised on 27.5.2014, as mentioned above, to pay the said amount within 15 days.
(3.) IT is admitted in the writ petition itself that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'), but such appeal is neither effective nor efficacious as the appeal would be heard by the Department itself. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing and thus, the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, this Court will have the jurisdiction to set aside the order impugned herein. It is pointed out that initially two notices bearing No. 1252 and 1430 were issued on 22.1.2013, but in respect of the first notice, the calculations to claim enhanced amount of compensation were not given. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was served with a notice on 22.4.2014 to appear on 17.4.2014, therefore, there could not be any hearing which satisfies the test of natural justice. Thus, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing to appear by way of a reasonable notice. In fact, the date of hearing was earlier than the date of issuance of the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jatinder Sood v. Haryana Urban Development authority, : 2000(3) PLR 733 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, : (1998)8 SCC page 1 and ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, : (2004)3 SCC 553.;