Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1485 (PNJ)

Ashok K. Tadon v. State Of Haryana

2006-04-17

H.S.BHALLA, VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The grievance made by the petitioner in the present petition is two-fold. First challenge is against the claim of the compound interest by the authorities. The second grievance is with regard to charges on account of non-construction on the plot in question. The petitioner maintains that the plot in question was originally allotted to the petitioner on July 20,1984 but the possession thereof was handed over for the first time on July 9,1992. On account of the delay in handing over the possession to the petitioner, he maintains that no interest could have been imposed on account of nonpayment of the instalments nor any charges for the non-construction could have been imposed upon him. 2. In support of his arguments, with regard to the first contention relating to the interest, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in Bhupinder Kumar Gupta v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another 1996 HRR 67. With regard to the other contention, the learned counsel maintains that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the authorities have not dealt with the aforesaid question at all. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Estate Officer, Haryana urban development Authority, Panchkula,respondent No.3 with a direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner made before this court. 4. The petitioner shall now file a detailed representation before the Estate Officer, respondent No.3,within a period of four weeks from the day a certified copy of this order is received. He would append all the necessary documents with the said representation and shall also append a copy of the judgment in Bhupinder Kumar Guptas case (supra ). On receipt of such representation, the Estate Officer shall consider the aforesaid representation and pass a detailed speaking order within a period of three months thereafter. The petitioner shall also be granted an opportunity of personal hearing,if so desired by him. 5. The Estate Officer while considering the claim of the petitioner making his grievance against the imposition of interest, shall also take into consideration the judgment in the case of Roochira Ceramics v. HUDA 2001 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 617. 6. A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.