M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE transferee of the original allottee has filed CWP No. 12126 of 2007 and the original owner has filed has filed CWP No. 14319 of 2007 by involving Article 226 of the Constitution. Both the writ petitions are proposed to be decided by this common order as the question of law is in respect of the same property. However, facts are being referred from CWP No. 12126 of 2007.
(2.) IN the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing a condition incorporated in the letter dated 17.4.2007 (P.4) while granting him permission to transfer property. According to the condition the petitioner is required to submit an affidavit that the petitioner has not filed any case in a Court against HUDA. A further prayer for quashing resumption order dated 9.7.2007 (annexure P.11) has also been made. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner is purchaser of property i.e. US Suit No. 18 and SCO site No. 131 Mahila Ashram Complex Karnal through General Power of Attorney from its original allottee namely Narinder Pal Singh, Smt. Kamlesh Garg and Smt. Aruna. Some amount was paid by the allottees at the time of allotment and the remaining amount was to be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days or in instalments. It is averred in the petition that subsequent proceedings under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity 'the Act') were carried out and the respondents informed the petitioner regarding payment of amount in which exorbitant rate was charged under different heads i.e. amount regarding due instalments, extension fee alongwith interest and penalty, compound interest on delayed instalments and even compound interest on enhanced amount. He submitted a detailed representation and when no action was taken he alongwith others filed CWP No. 5388 of 2005 in this Court which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. Thereafter the matter was processed by the respondents and recommendations (Annexure P.1) were sent by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal to the Administrator, HUDA Panchkula who vide order dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure P.2) took the decision whereby some relief was granted. The petitioners in the meantime deposited the entire amount of the plots in question and also made a representation (Annexure P.3). Thereafter petitioner applied for grant of permission for transfer and the same was granted and a copy of provisional transfer permissions in respect of DS No.18 is Annexure P.4 and with regard to SCO 131 it is Annexure P.5. In permission Annexure P.4 there is a condition that the petitioner should withdraw his representation and qua DS site No.18 a condition has been incorporated that the petitioner should withdraw his appeal pending before the Chief Administrator. It is submitted that infact the representation and the appeal has been made with reference to the provisional transfer letter and that entire amount has been paid. The question raised in this petition is only regarding refund. It is claimed that the conditions imposed by the respondents is perverse and against the mandate of law.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that respondents are charging compound and penal interest on delayed payment from the allottees. It averred that no compound interest or penal interest could be charged in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ruchirca Ceremics v. HUDA, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 617 : 2001(1) PLJ 109 and that of this Court in the case of Gian Inder Sharma v. HUDA, 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 279. As the representation of the petitioner which was already subjudice before the authority and no decision was being taken thereon the petitioner was compelled to file CWP No. 7050 of 2007 in this Court. The petition was disposed of on 11.5.2007 in terms of the orders passed on 8.5.2007 in CWP No. 3737 of 2007 (Annexure P.6). Thereafter vide letter dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P.7) the respondents recommended the case of the petitioner with the observation that the orders of the High Court are to be meticulously complied with. Apart from this, the petitioner paid the entire amount on 14.3.2007 and 22.3.2007 (Annexure P.8 and P.9). The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 25.6.2007 (Annexure P.10) asserting that no compound interest can be charged from the allottee in respect of the period of default. However, in a haphazard manner the entire directions have been disobeyed and the impugned order dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure P.11) has been passed in utter defiance of the directions issued by this Court and for that purpose the petitioner filed COCP 1069 of 2007. This Court was of the view that since the order has been passed and the remedy is to challenge the same. The contempt petition was withdrawn on 31.7.2007 with liberty to challenge the order;