- (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby while accepting the appeal filed on behalf of the defendant -respondents, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed vide impugned judgment an decree dated 16.1.2014. Plaintiff -appellant filed the instant suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 13.12.2002, resuming the suit property, passed by the respondents and notices dated 8.4.2003 under Section 18(1)(b) and notices dated 14.1.2004 under Section 18(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1973 (for short, the HUDA Act") were illegal, null and void and were liable to be set aside being beyond the provisions of the HUDA Act and in violation of the terms of allotment letter, with further relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing her from Booth No.243 -P Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 4, Panchkula.
(2.) AS per the averments made, in the year 1998, under the Rehabilitation Scheme, the plaintiff was offered to purchase a booth on free hold basis in the New Shopping Centre, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula and she was allotted Booth No.243 -P, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula for a tentative cost of Rs.3,06,900/ - on free hold basis vide memo No.EGP/200/8572 dated 5.5.2000. She was required to pay 25% of the bid money within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter and rest of 75% was to be paid in lumpsum or in 10 half yearly instalments with interest. It is the case of the appellant that she deposited Rs.27,900/ - on 15.10.1998 and Rs.48,825/ - on 25.5.2000 towards 25% of the tentative price of the booth in question. It is her further case that the she was forced to shift to the aforesaid shop in the incomplete Shopping Centre, as there was no basic infrastructural facilities. Despite several representations, the development work was not completed by the defendants and due to all these factors, plaintiff suffered huge financial loss in her business and therefore, she could not make payment of instalments in time. However, the defendants resumed the booth in question vide order dated 13.12.2002 without adopting proper procedure and without serving any notice upon the appellant, as required before initiating resumption proceedings. Even the resumption order was not served upon her. It is her further case that after resumption, she had deposited various sums and the appellant was also ready to pay the balance amount. Still her appeal against the order of resumption was dismissed under Section 17(5) of the HUDA Act and the resumption order was pending. The respondents issued notice under Section 18(1)(b) dated 8.4.2003 and notice under Section 18(2) dated 14.1.2004 of the HUDA Act, which were illegal, null and void. It was further alleged that under the garb of resumption order dated 13.12.2002 and subsequent notices, the respondents were threatening to dispossess the appellant from the booth in question illegally and forcibly. Hence, the instant suit.
(3.) UPON notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts etc. On merits, it was admitted that the booth was allotted to the appellant for a tentative price of Rs.3,06,900/ - vide allotment letter dated 5.5.2000. However, after depositing 25% of the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.27,900/ - on 15.10.1998 and Rs.48,825/ - on 25.5.2000, the appellant failed to pay the remaining amount, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. It was further stated that the allotment was made after completing the necessary development work. The appellant duly accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment, however, failed to pay instalments and interest accrued thereon and therefore, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 17 of the HUDA Act. After following the due process, the booth was resumed. The appellant filed an appeal against the resumption order which was dismissed in default on 22.7.2003 and thereafter, notices under Section 18(1)(b) and 18(2) of the Act were issued against her. Thus, she was left with no right, title or interest in the booth in question and the defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.;