Judgment:
CWP No.22054 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22054 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision :
19. 11.2012 M/s Chopra Engineers PVT.Ltd.......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents ...CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner..1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK,J C.M.No.16182 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Judgement passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division).Faridabad, dated 24.4.2006, is permitted to be placed on record as Annexure P-17.
Crl.Misc.
Application stands disposed of.
CWP No.22054 of 2012 The petitioner-company, through the instant writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the resumption CWP No.22054 o”
2. order dated 12.2.2001, passed by the competent authority and also the subsequent orders passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, whereby the resumption order was upheld.
The facts of the case, when put into narrow compass, are that a commercial plot bearing Booth No.38, Sector 15-A, Part-I at Faridabad, was allotted to the petitioner, vide letter of allotment dated 30.5.1989 (Annexure P-1).The allotment was made on freehold basis, pursuant to an open public auction, as per the terms and conditions of allotment.
Total sale consideration of the commercial plot was ` 6,82,000/-.
Petitioner-company deposited the initial amount of 25%.
Out of 25%, 10% was deposited at the fall of hammer and 15% on issue of allotment letter.
However, thereafter, petitioner did not pay the remaining 75% amount towards the sale consideration.
On the other hand, petitioner started writing letters to the respondent authorities immediately after the allotment, including letters dated 21.8.1989 (Annexure P-2) and 20.10.1989 (Annexure P-3).disputing the price to be on higher side, as alleged by the petitioner.
When the petitioner did not deposit any amount for more than 11 yeaRs.despite repeated notices, the competent authority passed the resumption order dated 12.2.2001.
Feeling aggrieved against the resumption order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but since the petitioner was not found willing to pay the outstanding dues, the appeal was dismissed on merits, although it was stated to be time barred also.
The appeal was dismissed on 5.6.2001.
The petitioner filed his revision petition as late as on 21.6.2006 i.e.after more than 5 yeaRs.When the revision filed by the petitioner was pending decision before the competent authority, petitioner approached this court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.21094 of 2011, seeking direction against the revisional authority for early decision and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.11.2011, CWP No.22054 o”
3. issuing appropriate directions to the revisional authority for deciding the revision petition of the petitioner within a period of four months.
Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, vide a detailed and speaking order dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure P-15).observing therein that the petitioner-company was still not ready to deposit the outstanding amount.
When the matter came up for hearing on 6.11.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record a copy of the judgement passed in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, which was decided in the year 2006.
The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the judgement dated 24.4.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division).Faridabad, which has been permitted to be placed on record as Annexure P-17.
A perusal of the judgement of the learned Civil Court shows that as many as six issues were framed and all the material issues were decided against the petitioner.
However, it is alleged that the learned civil court has not decided the civil suit on merits, but it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the revisional authority, which came to be dismissed, vide abovesaid order dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure P-15).Based on the above said facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily, while putting the reserve price of the plot in question as ` 6.22 lacs, whereas the reserved price of a similar plot was ` 3.11 lacs only.
It was further contended that the petitioner had been writing to the respondent authorities right from the time of his allotment, but the request of the petitioner was not given due consideration.
It was next contended that the impugned resumption order, appellate order as well as the revisional order passed by the respondent authorities, were patently illegal because the serious discrepancy in the reserve price qua the plot in question, has CWP No.22054 o”
4. not been considered before passing the impugned ordeRs.He prays for setting aside the impugned ordeRs.while allowing the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate his argument, placed reliance on a judgement of this court in M/s Aakash Ganga and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.2009(2) RCR(Civil) 652.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of the record and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is without any merit and it must fail.
Reasons are more than one, which are being recorded here-in-after.
Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the plot in question in the public auction.
It goes without saying that the petitioner participated in the open auction, after having fully understood the reserve price fixed, as per the location and size of the plot.
Further, the petitioner accepted the auction proceedings and deposited 10% of the sale price at the fall of hammer.
Thereafter, the petitioner accepted the letter of allotment including all the terms and conditions thereof, wherein the amount of sale consideration has been specifically mentioned.
The petitioner did not challenge the validity of auction proceedings, including the reserve price for the commercial plot.
He willingly participated in the auction proceedings, which culminated into the acceptance of the highest bid given by the petitioner.
Once the petitioner accepted the allotment, including all the terms and conditions thereof, he cannot be permitted to turn around and say that reserve price was on higher side.
The petitioner gave the highest bid with open eyes after accepting the reserved price fixed for the commercial plot, in view of its size and location.
Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to hold that it was a concluded contract between the parties.
If the petitioner wanted to back out from the terms CWP No.22054 o”
5. and conditions of the contract, at a latter point of time, the consequences were bound to follow.
Thus, the star argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has been found without any substance, which is liable to be rejected.
A combined reading of all the three impugned orders i.e.the resumption order, appellate order as well as the revisional order passed by the respective competent authorities, would clearly show that after deposit of initial 25% amount towards the sale consideration, petitioner never intended to pay the balance amount of 75% towards the sale consideration.
Numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioner for depositing the balance amount, but the petitioner miserably failed to avail any of the opportunity.
It is evident from the perusal of communication Annexure P-4 as well as from the impugned resumption order.
It is also the matter of record that after the allotment letter Annexure P-1, having been issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1989, petitioner did not pay even a single penny towards the balance 75% of the sale consideration for more than 11 long yeaRs.No justification of any kind, whatsoever, is forthcoming on the record to show that the petitioner was restrained to make the payment or the unexplained and inordinate long delay in making the payment, was beyond its control.
However, one thing is very clear that petitioner had been trying its level best to delay the matter on one false pretext or the other.
Thus, the conduct of the petitioner has also left it disentitled for the relief, sought by way of instant petition.
Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that due opportunity of being heard was not afforded to it, at any relevant point of time during all these yeaRs.Another very important aspect of the matter is that even at the time of hearing of the appeal as well as revision, petitioner did not show any inclination for depositing the outstanding amount.
It was so recorded by the appellate CWP No.22054 o”
6. authority, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the relevant operative part of the appellate order reads as under :- “ The ADA appeared on behalf of respondent and has stated that appellant did not deposit the due instalments in time after issuing all the notices U/S 17(1) & (2) on dt.23.5.90, 6.5.92, 24.9.92, 17(2) on dt.29.12.92, 17(3) on dt.4.2.93, 17(4) on dt.9.12.93, 26.2.98 of HUDA Act 1977 and booth resumed as per HUDA policy.
The appeal filed is time barred.
The appellant is not entitled for any relief, hence the appeal may be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
From the perusal of record, it is revealed that the said booth was allotted on 17.8.89.
From the record, it appears that all the notices U/s 17(1).(2).(3) & (4) of HUDA Act 1977 were issued to the appellant for making the due payment of said booth, but the appellant ignored all the notices.
During the hearing, the appellant has still not shown willingness to pay all the dues and asked for easy instalments.
There is no merit in the appeal, hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.”
The above said appellate order shows that the appeal of the petitioner was time barred, yet the appellate authority proceeded to decide the same on merits and very rightly so, because it is the settled proposition of law that the quasi judicial authorities should decide the rights of the parties on merits instead of technicalities, so as to do substantial justice.
Still further, the revisional authority again reconsidered each and CWP No.22054 o”
7. every aspect of the matter before arriving at a just conclusion.
Even before the revisional authority, the petitioner was not ready to deposit the balance amount towards the sale consideration.
The relevant part of the order dated 13.3.2012 reads as under :- “ I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case.
It is true that when the site was auctioned, the area of the same was shown 9' x 27' and its reserve price was fixed ` .6,22,000/-.
The petitioner company purchased the site being highest bidder for ` 6,82,000/-.
The company failed to pay 75% of the site inspite of notices issued under Section 17 of HUDA Act.
The petitioner raised a lame excuse of less area only to avoid to deposit balance price of the site.
The petitioner company is not still ready to deposit the due price of the site along with interest and penalty as per HUDA policy, if the same is restored.
The averment of the petitioner company to rectify the allotment letter and increase the allotted area is not possible to be accepted.
It is also not possible to reduce the reserve price of adjoining the auctioned area on the ground that reserve price of adjoining sites was less as this site being corner size, abutting the verandah commanded higher reserve price.
In these circumstances, I find no justification to interfere in the well resumed order passed by the Administrator on 5.6.2001.
Accordingly, I order dismissal of the Revision Petition.
The order was announced in the presence of the parties.
Be communicated to them.”
From the foregoing discussion, it becomes crystal clear that the CWP No.22054 o”
8. impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities were neither cryptic not No.speaking.
On the other hand, the impugned orders are well justified on facts as well as sustainable in law.
We say so because the impugned orders are supported by plausible reasons.
Further, this court is not sitting in appeal on the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities.
After a careful perusal of the impugned ordeRs.it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned orders have not been found to be suffering from the vice of arbitrariness.
So far as the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in M/s Akash Ganga and another (supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on facts.
It was held by this court that HUDA was not entitled to charge any interest before delivering the possession to the allottee as per the terms and conditions of allotment.
It was further held that the order of resumption passed on the basis of not deposit of amount of interest and penal interest imposed without handing over the vacant possession of the plot was not justified, being contrary to the terms of allotment.
The facts of the present case, as noted above, are entirely different.
It is the settled proposition of law that one additional circumstance or a different fact can make a world of difference.
Thus, it is held that neither it would be safe not prudent to rely upon any judicial precedent without critically analysing and comparing the two different fact situations obtaining in two set of cases.
After a careful perusal of the record of the case and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this court is of the view that the petitioner was not a genuine allottee.
In the given fact situation of the present case, this court feels no hesitation to hold that right from the beginning, petitioner was trying to delay the matter as long as possible, without showing its bonafide for paying the balance amount, at any point of time.
The allotment in question CWP No.22054 o”
9. was made in the year of 1989 and during all these more than 23 long yeaRs.petitioner never intended to pay even a single penny towards the balance sale consideration.
But kept on trying its level best to keep the matter alive, under one or the other false pretext.
Having said that and viewed from any angle, petitioner has not been found to be entitled for any relief.
This court is alive to the situation that resumption order, generally speaking, should be the last resort at the hands of the authorities concerned.
However, if the allottee is found not to be a genuine allottee not inclined to make the payment of balance amount for years and years together, as in the present case, the competent authority would be fully justified in law to proceed further to order resumption of the allotment.
We say so because if the resumption orders are kept in abeyance for decades together, as the petitioner sought to keep the matter hanging in the present case, such an unhealthy practice will certainly result in causing serious prejudice to the State exchequer and ultimately to a common tax payer.
Further, it would become a vicious circle, besides permitting a chronic defaulter to derive benefit out of his own wrong.
However, this court would hasten to add that whenever it is found by the competent authority that any allottee has given reasonable explanation for the not payment, disclosing any reasons beyond his control, it would be desirable that due opportunity is granted to the defaulting allottee for making the payment with interest and penal interest etc., as per the terms and conditions of allotment.
No straight jacket formula can be laid down, in this regard, because every case would be considered and decided as per its own given fact situation.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the present writ petition has CWP No.22054 o”
10. been found bereft of any merit and without any substance.
Thus, it must fail, as no case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.
( JASBIR SINGH ) (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE JUDGE 19 11.2012 GS