Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 520 (PNJ)

Davinder Singh v. Administrator, Urban Estate

2004-05-05

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2004
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The petitioners purchased shop-cum-flat No. 47 in Sector 8, Panchkula in an open auction held on 24.7.1981. The bid was for a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/-. As per the prescribed procedure, 10% of the price was to be deposited on the fall of the hammer and 15% within thirty days thereof. A letter of allotment dated 24.8.1981, Annexure P1 was thereafter issued to the petitioners and they were given the option to pay the balance amount in eight half yearly instalments starting from 24.2.1982. The petitioner accepted the allotment and also paid one full instalment and a part of the second totalling Rs. 2,24,488-44P. in all. As per Clause 6 of the letter, Annexure P1, the possession of the site was to be offered to the petitioners on the completion of development works in the area and intimation to this effect was required to be sent to the petitioners as per the procedure laid down in Section 42 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter called the Act). It is the petitioners case that no such intimation was ever sent and as a matter of fact the entire area remained un-developed, on which they surrendered the plot vide communication, Annexure P2 dated 25.3.1983 which was duly received by the respondents. The petitioners however, received a show cause notice dated 18.10.1983 from the Estate Officer, Panchkula under Section 17(1) of the Act to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 12,072-60P. be not imposed on them. The petitioners in their communication, Annexure P3 dated 15.11.1983 sent a reply pointing out that they had already surrendered the plot on 25.3.1983 and as such the question of levy of penalty did not arise. They also claimed that the entire amount of Rs. 2,24,488-44P, which had been paid to the respondents, should be refunded to them with interest. The respondent-Estate Officer, however kept silent for about two years and ultimately vide letter dated 7.2.1985, Annexure P4, informed the petitioners that their request for surrender had been accepted and out of a total amount of Rs. 2,24,488-14P. paid by them a sum of Rs. 1,58,730-25P only was refundable. Admittedly this amount had been actually re-paid to the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA (respondent No. 1). 2,24,488-14P. paid by them a sum of Rs. 1,58,730-25P only was refundable. Admittedly this amount had been actually re-paid to the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before the Administrator, HUDA (respondent No. 1). This appeal was rejected vide order Annexure P6 dated 30.7.1985 holding that the surrender of a plot was envisaged under the Act, but a sum of Rs. 1,58,730-25P. only out of the total amount, which had been deposited was refundable as per guidelines, Annexure P7 issued on 12.2.1985 under Regulation 14 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Land & Building) Regulations, 1978 and the delay from 25.3.1983 to 7.2.1985 in the disposal of the surrender application was on account of the fact that the guidelines afore-mentioned had not been framed. Aggrieved by the orders, Annexure P4 and P6 the present petition has been filed. 2. The primary case of the petitioner is that the entire amount of Rs. 2,24,488-44P was refundable as no guidelines had been framed till 12.2.1985 and the plot in question had been surrendered two years prior thereto i.e., on 25.3.1983. 3. A reply has been filed by the respondents and the basic facts have not been denied. It has been pleaded that the guidelines, Annexure P-7 had been notified on 12.2.1985 pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting held on 16.1.1985. It has also been pleaded that some letters had been issued to the petitioners in September, 1982 calling upon them to take possession of the plot in question but they had not done so. 4. A replication has been filed by the petitioners in which it has been highlighted that the letter of September, 1982 had not been received by them and even as per the stand of the respondents, the development works in the area had been incomplete even upto January, 1986. Reference has also been made in the replication to the fact that the owners of shop-cum-flat No. 46, Sector 8 which adjoined the plot sold to the petitioners had been refunded the entire amount minus the interest by virtue of an order dated 15.4.1986 on the premise that the development work in the neighbourhood of shop-cum-flat 46, Sector 8 had not yet been completed. In support of this plea, the petitioners have put on record Annexure P8 dated 15.4.1986, an order made by the Administrator, HUDA authorising the refund of the entire amount minus the interest to the auction purchasers of shop-cum-flat 46, Sector 8. 5. Mr. A.K. Chopra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that as per Regulation 14, guidelines had to be framed in the case of surrender of plots and in the absence of such guidelines, there was no option with the respondents but to return the entire amount which had been paid towards the price of the plot. He has also pointed out that it was clear from Annexure P-8 that the respondents had specifically conceded that as there had been no development around the area around of the shop-cum-flat 46, Sector 8, Panchkula and the owners of that plot were thus entitled to a refund of almost the entire amount deposited by them. He has accordingly urged that there was absolutely no reason as to why the entire amount should not have been refunded to the petitioners in the present case as well as both the plots were identically situated and contiguous to each others. 6. I have seen the record and find that though the respondents have been served and have also filed a reply, they remain un-presented today. As the matter is pending since 1986, I deem it inappropriate to adjourn the matter any further. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Regulation 14 ibid is reproduced below:- "14. Surrender of land/building by the transferee or lesee.- If a transferee/lessee is unable to raise construction on the land disposed of to him due to certain compelling circumstances, the Estate Officer may allow to surrender the land at his discretion, subject to the policy guide lines laid down by the Chief Administrator from time to time. In the case of acceptance of surrender, the interest amount recovered from the transferee or lessee shall not in any case be refunded. 7. It appears to be the admitted position that a decision for the framing or guidelines had been taken in the meeting held on 16.1.1985 and the guidelines had in fact been notified on 12.2.1985, Annexure P-7. Admittedly the plot in question had been surrendered vide Annexure P-2 on 25.3.1983. 7. It appears to be the admitted position that a decision for the framing or guidelines had been taken in the meeting held on 16.1.1985 and the guidelines had in fact been notified on 12.2.1985, Annexure P-7. Admittedly the plot in question had been surrendered vide Annexure P-2 on 25.3.1983. To me, therefore, it is clear that in the absence of any guidelines laid down under Regulation 14 till 7.2.1985, it was not open to the respondents to withhold any amount given by the petitioners. The Administrator in his order, Annexure P-6, had observed that no decision could be taken in the petitioners case for want of guidelines under Regulation 14. I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the inactivity of the respondents or be prejudiced by the application of the guidelines retrospectively. 8. It is also clear that the petitioners had purchased shop-cum-flat 47, Sector 8, Panchkula in the auction held on 24.7.1981. Likewise the owners of shop-cum-flat No. 46, Sector 8 had purchased their property for almost the same price in the same auction. The Administrator, HUDA in the order, Annexure P-8 has clearly noted these facts. He has also observed in this order that the case of site No. 47, Sector 8 belonging to the petitioners was dis-similar to site No. 46, Sector 8 as development works had not been completed. To my mind, this argument on the face of it lacks merit as admittedly both the sites adjoin each other. 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 cannot be sustained for this reason as well. The petition is accordingly allowed, the aforesaid orders are quashed. 10. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Chopra that a sum of Rs. 65,788-25P. has been wrongly withheld by the respondents for almost 21 years i.e. from 25.3.1983 when the application to surrender the plot was filed. He has accordingly prayed that interest on this amount should be paid to the petitioners. I find this prayer to be justified in the light of the factual position mentioned above. The petitioners shall thus be entitled to payment of simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 25.3.1985 to the date of actual payment. There will, however, be no order as to costs.