Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3216 (PNJ)

Somesh Gupta v. State Of Haryana

2006-08-08

H.S.BHALLA, VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the order dated January 2, 2006 passed by respondent No.1. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner to a limited extent inasmuch as respondent No.1 has remitted the case back to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for the consideration of the claim made by the petitioner with regard to the levy of interest/extension fee but has made observations that the offer of possession of the plot to the petitioner shall be deemed to be made on August 12, 1996 and therefore, the allottee was liable to pay non-construction fee w. e. f August 12, 1998. The petitioner has challenged the directions issued by respondent No.1, whereby it has been directed that the interest of 14%/18% shall be charged from the petitioner. It has also been directed that in case of failure of the allottee to deposit the outstanding dues, the Estate Officer would proceed under Sec.17 of HUDA Act for resumption of the plot. 2. No written statement has been filed by the respondents despite an early opportunity granted to them. 3. In view of the aforesaid fact, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the averments made in the present petition. Sh. Vikram Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had been allotted the plot in question in the year 1986, but despite repeated efforts made by him, the actual physical possession of the said plot was never offered. In these circumstances, neither the petitioner was in a position to raise any construction on the said plot nor the Department was justified in charging the interest on the outstanding dues. 4. Without commenting any further on the pleas raised by the petitioner, we have noticed that vide order dated January 2, 2006, respondent No.1 has remitted the matter back to the Estate Officer for the consideration of the claim made by the petitioner with regard to the levy of the interest/extension fee. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that once the matter is being reexamined by the Estate Officer, then the pleas raised by the petitioner shall be also re-examined by the Estate Officer afresh. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that once the matter is being reexamined by the Estate Officer, then the pleas raised by the petitioner shall be also re-examined by the Estate Officer afresh. Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon to reconsider the entire claim made by the petitioner. 5. For this purpose, the petitioner would be required to file a detailed and comprehensive representation appending all the relevant documents before the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon within 4 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. 6. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, the Estate Officer, Gurgaon shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take a final decision on the said representation by passing a detailed and speaking order remaining uninfluenced by the observations made by respondent No.1 in her order dated January 2, 2006. Till the matter is finally decided by the Estate Officer, Gurgaon, no further proceedings against the petitioner shall be initiated. 7. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges. .