Amarjeet Kaur & Ors. vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the resumption order dated 02.08.2001 (Annexure P7) passed by Respondent No. 5; quashing the eviction order dated 04.01.2002 (Annexure P8) passed by respondent No.5; quashing the order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P15) passed by respondent no. 4, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners and for quashing the order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P17) passed by respondent no.2, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners. A further prayer has been made for issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the allotment of Commercial Booth No. 53, Sector-28, Faridabad, in favour of the petitioners.

Brief facts of the present case are that Sarmukh Singh, husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2, father-in-law of petitioner No.3 and grandfather of petitioner No.4 was allotted commercial building/booth No.53 in Sector 28 at Faridabad on freehold basis by virtue of the allotment letter dated 17.01.1994. The said allotment letter has been annexed as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the same would show that the price of the said property was stated to be Rs.4,20,000/- and a sum of Rs.42,000/- was to be deposited as bid money at the time of the bid and thereafter, Rs.63,000/- had to be paid within 30 days from the date of issue of the said letter in order to make 25% price of the said building. It was further stated in para no.5 that the balance amount i.e., Rs.3,15,000/- could be paid either in lump-sum within 60 days or in 10 half yearly installments at a balance price of 15% interest. Importantly, in Clause 22, it was specifically stated that no separate notice would be sent for payment of the installments. Clauses 5, 8, 10 and 22 of the said allotment letter are reproduced as under :

From the above-said allotment letter, the terms of which are not in dispute, it is apparent that the balance amount of Rs.3,15,000/- was to be paid either within 60 days in lump-sum or on 10 half yearly installments which period would extend up to the year 1999-2000.

It is the case of the petitioners that they had deposited Rs.2,20,000/-. The balance amount has admittedly not been paid by Sarmukh Singh or by the petitioners till date. It is also relevant to note that a perusal of the allotment letter dated 17.01.1994 would show that the address at which the said allotment letter was issued was A-81, Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and it is not in dispute that said Sarmukh Singh had given the said address to the authorities for the purpose of communication and that there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that any alleged change of address was ever intimated to the authorities. When the payments were not made, then, several notices were issued by the respondent-authorities under Section 17 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1977’). One such notice, which was a show cause notice, has been annexed by the petitioners which is dated 22.01.1998 (Annexure P-5), in which, Sarmukh Singh was directed to pay the arrears. Another show cause notice dated 17.05.2001 has been annexed as Annexure P-6 by the petitioners. Ultimately, the resumption order was passed vide order dated 02.08.2001. A perusal of the said order would show that it was specifically stated that despite several notices the allottee did not clear the arrears amounting to Rs.9,97,821/- and did not even furnish any explanation regarding the same. Further proceedings under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1977 were also initiated as is apparent from the order dated 04.01.2002 (Annexure P-8), in which, it was specifically stated that the booth has been resumed and that the said Sarmukh Singh was in unauthorized occupation and direction was given to vacate the premises.

Against the said two orders dated 02.08.2001 and 04.01.2002, the petitioners filed an appeal after a period of 20 years before the Administrator, HSVP and the Administrator, HSVP, while exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, HSVP, dismissed the same vide order dated 16.07.2024. A perusal of the same would show that all the relevant facts were noticed and even the fact that several notices under Section 17 of the Act of 1977, including the notices dated 19.12.1997, 27.01.1998, 17.05.2001 and 26.06.2001, were issued was duly noticed. The fact that the outstanding amount had not been paid by the petitioners up to the year 2001 was also considered. It was further observed that the eviction orders under Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Act of 1977 had also been passed on 04.01.2002 and 13.03.2002. It would be relevant to note that the order dated 13.03.2002 has not been annexed along with the present petition nor any challenge has been made to the same. The appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed after 20 years and was thus time barred and no sufficient cause had been shown by the petitioners to condone the delay.

The petitioners, thereafter, filed revision petition before the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning & Urban Estates Departments, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2025. The factum of the issuance of several notices under Section 17 of the Act of 1977 and passing of the order dated 13.03.2002 passed under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1977 were duly noticed. It was also noticed that there was no documentary proof to show that any request for change of address from Delhi to another place was submitted and that in spite of due opportunity, no written submissions had been filed on behalf of the petitioners. It was observed that in case there is any change of address, then, it was the duty of the petitioners to have intimated the same to the authorities and that the total dues which were Rs.9,97,821/- as in the year 2001 had not been paid. Even the aspect of the file having been misplaced in the year 2018 was found to be irrelevant as the property in question was resumed in the year 2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, son of the allottee had died on 03.03.2000 and thus there was a tragedy in the house of the petitioners. It is further submitted that Sarmukh Singh had been regularly approaching the office of respondent No.5 to settle the outstanding dues until he died on 10.09.2012 and after his death the property devolved upon the petitioners, who also made inquries vide letter dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure P-11). It is submitted that the allottee had sold his house in Delhi on 05.05.1995 and had moved into a rented premises in Faridabad and thereafter purchased property in Faridabad and that the petitioners were not aware of the notices. It is further submitted that the respondents were aware of the business address of the petitioners which was the booth in question and thus, they should have issued notices on the said business address.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, has opposed the present writ petition and has submitted that even as per the averments made in para No.13 of the writ petition, it is apparent that Sarmukh Singh had been following up the case and yet, Sarmukh Singh, during his lifetime, never chose to make the payment. It is stated that as per the allotment letter, it was not incumbent upon the authorities to have even issued notices to the allottee to remind them about the said payment to be made as it was the duty of the allottee to have made the payment in accordance with the terms of the said allotment letter. It is further submitted that the notices were issued on the address which had been supplied by Sarmukh Singh and since no application was given for the change of address, thus, it cannot be argued by the petitioners that the respondents should have issued notice to a different address/business address. It is stated that in pursuance of the order dated 05.08.2026, passed by this Court, it has been verified that in the last auction which had taken place in the year 2023, booth No.71 in the same sector i.e. Sector 28, Faridabad, which is similar to the booth in question was sold for an amount of Rs.83,10,100/- and since a period of three years has further elapsed, the prices have further increased. It is further stated that the impugned orders have been rightly passed and after the resumption, in case a fresh auction takes place with respect to property in question, it would be open to the petitioners to participate in the same.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.

As has been detailed herein above, Sarmukh Singh was allotted the booth in question vide the allotment letter dated 17.01.1994. The terms of the said allotment letter clearly showed that the balance amount had to be paid by the petitioners either in lump-sum within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in 10 half yearly installments along with 15% interest. Thus, the payments were to be made up to the year 1999-2000. It was further specifically mentioned in Clause 22 that no separate notice would be given for payment of installments. The allottee, who seeks to take benefit of the terms of the allotment letter, has to comply with the said terms, which admittedly the said Sarmukh Singh who was the original allottee, had not done. In fact, even till date i.e., after elapse of 32 years, the entire payment has not been made and only an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as per the case of the petitioners has been paid. It is the case of the respondents that the price of similarly placed booth which was auctioned in the year 2023 was Rs.83,10,100/-and the said prices have further increased.

A perusal of allotment letter dated 17.01.1994 would clearly show that the address given by the allottee Surmukh Singh was A-81, Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. It has been found by the authorities in the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 that there is nothing on record to show that any application was given by the said Sarmukh Singh or by the petitioners informing the authorities about any change of address, more so, prior to the passing of the resumption order dated 02.08.2001. In para 13 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the said Sarmukh Singh had regularly followed up with the office of respondent No.5 for settling the outstanding dues and he had died on 10.09.2012. From the said averment, it is apparent that Sarmukh Singh knew that there was outstanding amount and yet, surprisingly he did not choose to deposit the same.

In the said circumstance, the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners, to the effect that since the allottee had sold the property in Delhi and had shifted to rented accommodation in Faridabad and the petitioners had also been doing business in the booth in question, thus, notices should have been issued there, deserves to be rejected. Apart from the fact that the correspondence address with respect to the allotment in question was never changed, even no sale deed with respect to the alleged sale of the house in Delhi or of the purchase of the property in Faridabad or any proof of having taken any rented accommodation in Faridabad has been annexed. At any rate, as per the terms of the allotment letter, it was the duty of Sarmukh Singh to have ensured the timely payment of the installments. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were aware of the outstanding dues as they had themselves sent a letter on 08.08.2017 inquiring about the same, whereas, the appeal against the order dated 02.08.2001 was filed after a period of 20 years and was thus dismissed by the Administrator, HSVP vide order dated 16.07.2024 after taking into consideration the entire facts including the fact that the appeal was time barred and no explanation has been given for the delay. The arguments raised before this Court do not justify the inaction on behalf of the original allottee as well as the petitioners with respect to the timely payments. The impugned orders have been passed after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and any interference, at this stage, by this Court would result in causing huge loss to the exchequer as the prices of the booth in question have increased manifold.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the impugned orders are upheld and the present writ petition, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.