Pooja JaIn Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and Onr - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....was issued. otherwise also, the distinction between resumption of a plot and house would have to be appreciated. 5.after resuming the house, the same may not be properly put to auction as such. the petitioner had also expressed willingness to pay extension fee etc. in the reply filed, it is not disputed by the huda that the petitioner has deposited all the dues. still, if any extension fee is required to be deposited, the same can be intimated to the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner undertakes to discharge any such liability. in view of the above factual position, no case is made out for permitting the respondents to pursue the show cause notice any further or to pass any resumption order. the writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned notice is quashed.

Judgment:

1. The petitioner is re-allottee of a plot measuring 432.38 Sq.mtrs. in Sector 21, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The petitioner has purchased this plot through registered sale deed dated 12.9.2005 from one Sunil Inderjit Sharma and Smt.Sipra Sharma. All the dues payable have been remitted to the respondents and no amount is due.

2. The petitioner was issued notices by the respondents under Sections 17(1), 17(2), 17(3) and 17(4) of the Haryana Urban CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12380 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Development Authority Act, 1977 to show cause as to why the plot in question be not resumed and 10% of the earnest money so deposited be not forfeited on the ground of non-construction over the plot in question upto minimum level of 25%. The petitioner responded by saying that due to her personal medical problem and family problem coupled with the problems arising out of Income Tax raid, she was unable to take up the construction work over the plot in question. The petitioner maintained that she had now overcome those problems and undertook to complete the construction work on the plot as per the policy within six months on such terms and conditions, including deposit of extension fee or compounding fee as per the rules. Against this notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. No resumption order so far has been passed. When this case came up for hearing before this Court on 16.7.2010, the Court passed the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plot is sought to be resumed on the ground of non-construction of the same only and there is no dispute regarding the payment of dues. He thus contends that although no order of resumption has been passed but in the eventuality of one coming into existence he will have to file an appeal which is likely to consume some time and the petitioner is likely to suffer on this count. He further undertakes that he is willing to carry out the construction on the plot immediately and shall conclude the same within a period of 6 to 8 weeks and is also willing to pay CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12380 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: extension fee etc. Notice of motion for 23.8.2010."

3.The petitioner thereafter made a statement before the Court on 28.1.2011 that she had completed the construction of the house. Counsel appearing for HUDA was then directed to have instructions with an observation that these instructions should be positive.

4.It was viewed by this Court since the petitioner has constructed a house on the plot in question, no ground would remain for resuming the house for which impugned show cause notice was issued. Otherwise also, the distinction between resumption of a plot and house would have to be appreciated.

5.After resuming the house, the same may not be properly put to auction as such. The petitioner had also expressed willingness to pay extension fee etc. In the reply filed, it is not disputed by the HUDA that the petitioner has deposited all the dues. Still, if any extension fee is required to be deposited, the same can be intimated to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to discharge any such liability. In view of the above factual position, no case is made out for permitting the respondents to pursue the show cause notice any further or to pass any resumption order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned notice is quashed.