Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 March, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.24824 of 2023
Reserved on: 08.02.2024
Pronounced on:21.03.2024
Jaswinder Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Himmat Singh, Advocate
for the respondents No.2 and 3.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL J.
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the
order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-14) dismissing the review petition
filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-8).
Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 20.07.2022 vide which the
revision petition preferred by respondents No.2 and 3 (hereinafter
referred to as the HSVP) was allowed and the resumption of the plot of
the petitioner was upheld.
2. The petitioner was allotted Plot No.24, measuring 420
square meters, in Sector 1 and 4, Hisar, vide letter of allotment dated
17.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
plot'). The tentative price was fixed as `31,41,600/. 25% of the sale
consideration was paid by the petitioner. The balance sale consideration,
as per the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment was to be paid as
per the schedule given in the letter of allotment.
(i) As per the petitioner, on account of financial crisis in the
family, the petitioner could not pay the installments regularly resulting in
the issuance of a show-cause notice dated 29.12.2017. Despite the
reasons for non-payment having been explained by the petitioner, the plot
was resumed vide order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-3).
(ii) Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the
petitioner (Annexure P-4). The same was allowed vide order dated
16.09.2021 (Annexure P-5) and the petitioner was called upon to clear
the outstanding amount within a period of 60 days.
(iii) Vide communication dated 21.10.2021, the petitioner wrote
to HSVP that she was ready and willing to deposit the outstanding
amount and requested that the status of her plot be changed from
'resumed' to 'restored' to enable the petitioner to deposit the outstanding
amount within the time period fixed by the Appellate Authority. To this,
HSVP, vide communication dated 29.10.2021 stated that they were
contemplating filing a revision petition and till a decision was taken in
the matter, no action could be taken (Annexure P-7).
(iv) Vide order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-8), the revision
petition preferred by HSVP was allowed, the order dated 16.09.2021
passed in appeal was set aside and the resumption order was restored.
(v) It is the case of the petitioner that the order by the revisional
authority was passed at the back of the petitioner without giving her any
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
opportunity of hearing. It has been claimed that the petitioner is suffering
from mental sickness since 2016 and has been under regular treatment.
The father of the petitioner expired on 19.01.2019 on account of which
the health of the petitioner further deteriorated. Her mother-in-law also
expired on 17.04.2020 as a result of which the petitioner faced a number
of issues and the family plunged into a crisis. It has also been averred that
when the revision petition was listed for hearing, the health of the
husband of the petitioner deteriorated and he remained admitted in
hospital. The medical record of the petitioner and some relatives has been
annexed as Annexures P-9 to P-11. It is also the case of the petitioner that
she has three school going children apart from an old ailing father-in-law
and that the delay in deposit of the installments was beyond her control.
(vi) The petitioner preferred CWP No.19826 of 2022 but the
same was withdrawn with liberty to avail other remedies available to her
(Annexure P-12).
(vii) A review application was thereafter preferred by the
petitioner against the revisional order which was also dismissed on
03.10.2023 (Annexure P-14)
3. Broadly the petitioner pleads that hers is a case of extreme
hardship and her plot deserves to be restored to her.
4. Though formal notice was not issued, however, since
learned counsel representing the respondents were present on account of
advance copy of the petition having been served upon them, they were
also heard.
5. It was vociferously argued by Sh. P. K. Ganga, learned
counsel representing the petitioner that the circumstances of the
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
petitioner as have been stated in the petition were such that the petitioner
was not able to clear the outstanding amount and when her appeal was
allowed and she was willing to clear the outstanding amount, the
respondents did not permit her to do so on the ground that they were
contemplating filing a revision petition against the order passed by the
Appellate Authority. Learned counsel submitted that the default of the
petitioner was not willful but was on account of circumstances beyond
her control. Learned counsel submitted that any woman facing so many
issues in life would definitely crumble under pressure and would make
efforts to re-join the scattered pieces of her life only post the situation
becoming somewhat normal. It was submitted that in view of the peculiar
facts and circumstances as have been stated in the petition and have been
argued by learned counsel, the disputed plot deserves to be restored to the
petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing HSVP, with
equal vehemence, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel
representing the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner
chose not to pay the outstanding amount for a number of years without
any plausible explanation which disentitles her from any relief.
(i). Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate
Authority had not considered the matter from the correct perspective and
had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner without considering the
settled position of law or the guidelines issued by the department.
Learned counsel submitted that under the circumstances, the revisional
authority rightly set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
8. The disputed plot was allotted to the petitioner vide letter of
allotment dated 17.09.2010. The tentative price was `31,41,600/-
(rupees thirty one lakh forty one thousand and six hundred). Admittedly,
only 25% of the said price amounting to `7,85,400/- (rupees seven lakh
eighty five thousand and four hundred) was paid out of which
`3,14,200/- (rupees three lakh fourteen thousand and two hundred) had
been paid as earnest money along with the application form and
`4,71,200/- (rupees four lakh seventy one thousand and two hundred)
was paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter.
The balance amount was to be paid in six equated annual installments
staring from 17.09.2011 and the last installment was to fall due on
17.09.2016. Admittedly, none of the installments was paid. It, therefore,
essentially means that no amount was paid after the deposit of 25%
amount in 2010.
(i) On account of non-payment of the installments, the
respondents, as it evident from the resumption order dated 30.12.2019
initiated proceedings for resumption only on 11.07.2016 when the first
notice under Section 17(1) of the HSVP Act was issued. It was followed
by subsequent notices under Section 17(2), 17(3) and 17(4). Penalty was
also imposed which was also not paid. Having no choice left, the plot
was resumed on 30.12.2019 by holding that the default in payment was
willful.
(ii) An appeal was instituted on 15.02.2021 i.e. more than one
year after the plot having been resumed. The Appellate Authority gave 60
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
days time to the petitioner to clear all the outstanding dues. At this stage,
the petitioner did show some bone fides by making a request for
depositing the outstanding amount, vide communication dated
21.10.2021.
(iii). The respondents, however, preferred a revision petition
which was accepted by the revisional authority vide order dated
20.07.2022 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set
aside. The revisional authority duly noticed the willful default on the part
of the petitioner as also the delay caused in filing the appeal.
(iv). The petitioner then knocked the doors of this Court. The
record was summoned by a Co-ordinate Bench and it appears that when
the Court was not inclined to interfere, the petitioner withdrew the writ
petition with liberty to avail remedies as would be available to her in law.
This would be evident from order dated 07.03.2003 passed in
CWP No.19826 of 2022 (Annexure P-12).
(v). The petitioner, thereafter filed a review petition against the
revisional order which has also now been dismissed holding the review
petition to be not maintainable, there being no provision of review. The
authority also noticed the willful default on the part of the petitioner.
(vi). It is, therefore, manifestly clear that there has been a willful
default on the part of the petitioner as the petitioner did not deposit a
single penny from 2010 to 2019 before the plot was resumed. The
medical record which has been annexed with the writ petition does not, in
any manner, even prima facie show that the petitioner was prevented
from some serious disease suffered by her or by her husband or some
other family member from depositing the outstanding amount. It has to
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
be borne in mind that the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment
are binding upon an allottee and that the petitioner was duty bound to
abide by the same. The petitioner, on the contrary did not bother to
deposit the outstanding amount and all this while, did not even bother to
make any request for extension etc., on account of the circumstances
which she is now stating were responsible for the non-deposit of the
outstanding amount.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities
committed no error in resuming the disputed plot. The Appellate
Authority allowed the petition without giving any cogent reasons for the
same. The order was, therefore, rightly set aside by the revisional
authority.
10. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner knocked
the doors of this Court by way of CWP No.19826 of 2022 and thereafter,
withdrew the same to avail other remedies after which the petitioner
simply filed a review petition which has also been dismissed as not
maintainable. The locus standi of the petitioner to, thereafter again prefer
the instant writ petition is also in serious doubt. Her conduct and bone
fides are in any case in serious doubt.
11. No doubt, it is well settled that resumption should normally
be a weapon of last resort. It has so been held in a number of judgments
viz M/s Teri Oat Estates (Private) Limited Vs. U.T., Chandigarh,
2004(1) HRR659 SC and Dheera Singh Vs. U.T. Chandigarh
Administration, LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-35, decided on 08.11.2012.
However, where the allottee is a chronic and a rank defaulter and the
default is willful which in the present case is, there would be no
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040667-DB
2024:PHHC:040667-DB
hesitation in invoking the said provisions. As has been noticed above, the
petitioner not only defaulted in payment of the outstanding amount from
2010 to 2019 but also did not participate in the proceedings and availed
the remedies after considerable delay which could not be condoned.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances, as have been
discussed above, we find the writ petition to be totally devoid of merit
and accordingly dismiss the same.
(ARUN PALLI) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Pronounced on: 21.03.2024
Rekha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
