High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Goverdhan Dass Jindal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-1067-1986  RD-P&H 11167 (23 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 21.11.2006
Goverdhan Dass Jindal and others ..Petitioners Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA
Present:- Mr. Chetan Mittal, Advocate,
For the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Gulati, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.
The petitioners by virtue of which this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for setting aside the orders dated August 14,1984 (Annexure P-1) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar and dated September 3, 1985 (Annexure P-2) passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar-respondent No.2.
The other facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that father of the petitioners Shri Raghu Nath Sahai allotted plot No.267-A, Model Town, Hisar in an auction on April 30,1974 for an amount of Rs.32,000/-. The father of the petitioners deposited 1/-5th of the bid
amount the same day and the other amounts ,i.e., Rs.4,317/-, Rs.4,317/- and Rs.4,360/- were deposited on April 5,1975, April 20,1976 and May 11,1977 respectively. It has been averred in the petition that the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, vide his order dated November 15,1978, ordered the resumption of the plot on the ground of non-payment of the balance amount and for non-construction over the site. This plot was allotted under the Civil Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1986 2
provisions of the East Punjab Refugees Rehabilitation (Building and Buildings Sites) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Shri Raghu Nath, the father of the petitioners, was allowed to deposit the balance amount in installments as provided in Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners had no other option but to challenge this order of resumption before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar by filing a revision petition, which was allowed by the then Commissioner Shri K.K.Punia on 16.5.1983 setting aside the order dated November 15, 1978 passed by Deputy Commissioner and remanded the case to him for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Commissioner was further directed to decide the entitlement of the petitioners with regard to refund of the amount paid by their father. Aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners again preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar, which was dismissed on September 3,1985. It has been further pointed out by the petitioners that their father died on May 21,1979, whereas the plot was resumed vide order dated November 15,1978. On the date of resumption of the plot, only one instalment was due.
It is further pleaded that before the resumption of the plot on November 15,1978, no notice was served upon the father of the petitioners and non- serving of the notice before resumption is violative of the principles of the natural justice and finally, it was prayed that the petition be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside.
On the other hand, the petition was contested by the respondents and through their written statement, it was pointed out that 4th instalment of Rs.4317/- was due against the father of the petitioners on April 10,1978. As the father of the petitioners failed to deposit the instalment on the due date, a notice was issued on the address given by him, i.e., House No.127-E, Model Town, Hisar, but Ram Sarup, Peon, when went to serve Civil Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1986 3
the notice, it came to light that Raghu Nath, father of the petitioners, was a tenant and he had left the house and had gone to Calcutta since long and his address was not available with the landlord. In these circumstances, a copy of the notice was pasted on plot No.267-A, Model Town, Hisar, but in spite of the notice, the father of the petitioners did not deposit the said instalment till November 1,1978, the date on which the plot was resumed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. Even the 3rd instalment, which was due on
April 10,1977, was not deposited in time and the same was deposited by May 10,1977 after the receipt of the notices dated April 2,1977 and May 7, 1977 issued to him for this purpose. It is further pointed out that due dates had already been given clearly on the conveyance deed (Annexure R-1), which was issued to him on June 18,1974. Respondents further pleaded that the resumption order is legal, valid and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The father of the petitioners was not deprived of any right/property illegally or without following the rules etc. as alleged. The said plot was auctioned again during the life time of the father of the petitioners, but he did not raise any objection against the same and now the petitioners have no cause to challenge any provision of law and by denying the other assertions raised by the petitioners, it was finally prayed by the respondents that the petition be dismissed.
Petitioners chose to file replication wherein they re-iterated their stand contained in the petition and denied the averments of the written statement.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on either side and have gone through the record carefully.
It is an admitted case of the parties that the conveyance deed (Annexure R-1) was issued containing the terms and conditions with regard to the property in question. It is again an admitted case of the petitioners Civil Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1986 4
that the plot in question was resumed on account of non-payment of instalments and non-construction thereon. In order to arrive at the right conclusion and keeping in view the admitted facts of the parties with regard to resumption of the plot in question on the basis of non-payment and non- construction thereon, it is necessary to reproduce Clause (14) of the Conveyance deed dated June 18,1974 (Annexure R-1), which runs as under:-
" In the event of non-payment of any instalment on due date or the breach or non-observance by the purchase of any of the coveants,herein on his part to be observed then, and in any such case, it shall be lawful for then Collector notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right for re-entry, to enter into and upon the said site/building or building thereon or any part thereof and to re-possess, retain and enjoy the same as of his former estate and the purchaser shall not be entitled to a refund of the purchase money or any part thereof or to any compensation whatsoever on account of such resumption." The above quoted clause clearly spells out that in the event of non-payment of any instalment, the plot can be resumed. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no notice was served upon the father of the petitioners before passing an order of resumption, but for the reasons to be recorded by me hereinafter, this contention is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. The record clearly spells out that notices dated April 25,1977 and May 7,1977 bear the signatures of the father of the petitioners in token of the receipt of the same and notice dated May 7, 1977 issued in the name of the father of the petitioners was got pasted on the plot in question, when it came to light that he left for Calcutta since long and his address is not available with the Civil Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1986 5
landlord. To my mind, the department has issued notice only on the address, which was furnished by the father of the petitioners and in case, he had left for Calcutta, then it was his duty to have informed the respondents regarding his change of address and then again copy of the resumption order was sent to the father of the petitioners vide endorsement No.2107 TSM dated November 20,1978 on which it was again reported that he had left for Calcutta and that none in the locality knew his whereabouts and accordingly, copy of the order was pasted on the conspicuous part of the house in accordance with the rules framed under the Act. He failed to deposit the 4th
instalment despite issuance of notice dated July 5,1978 and moreover, dates on which instalments were issued, had already been given in the conveyance deed (Annexure R-1) itself. After resumption of plot on November 15,1978, same was reauctioned in favour of respondent No.3 on May 19,1979. All this clearly spells out that re-auction proceedings were not done in haste and the allotment authority acted strictly in accordance with rules and followed the procedure as required under the law. The perusal of the order dated August 14,1984 (Annexure P-1) clearly spells out that the plot in question was resumed on account of the failure of the father of the petitioners in not depositing 4th
instalment and non-constructing the plot under Section 11 of the Act and I find that the order is well reasoned and the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act were considered by the competent authority at the time of passing of the order (Annexure P-1).
Moreover, re-auction proceedings have not been challenged by the petitioners before the competent authorities and no notice was required to be issued for non-construction since conveyance deed clearly spells out that the construction was required to be raised within three years. The father of the petitioners neither raised the same nor paid instalment on due dates and this necessitated the passing of the resumption order. It is further Civil Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1986 6
admitted case of the parties that 20% of the amount deposited under Section 9 of the Act was ordered to be refunded to the legal heirs of the deceased. The relevant part of this order runs as under:- "........I order that 20% of the amount deposited under section 9 (c ) of the East Punjab Refugees Rehabilitation (Building & Building Sites) Act, 1948 by Shri Raghu Nath Rai be refunded to the legal heirs. This will meet the ends of justice." In view of what has been discussed above, it is ip so facto clear that the orders in question are legal and valid and the same have been passed in accordance with law and there is no violation by the competent authority in any manner. No injustice has been done to the petitioners. No material irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned.
There is nothing to be set right and in the final analysis, the petition is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Before parting with this order, It is directed that 20% of the amount deposited by the father of the petitioners with the respondent- authorities be refunded to the legal heirs of the deceased within a period of 40 days from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
November 22,2006 ( H.S.BHALLA )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.