Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana

I. S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner impugns the resumption of an Industrial Plot No. 44 (measuring 1,250 sq. yds.) in Sector 24, NIT Faridabad, allotted in his favour for the construction of a factory building by the respondentauthorities. The ground for resumption is that in violation of the terms and conditions of allotment, he failed to complete the construction of the building within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of issue of the allotment order. A showcause notice was issued to him vide Estate Officer''s Memo No. 44529/AUE dated 20th December, 1972 asking the petitioner to showcause within 15 days as to why the building in question be not resumed and the deposit made by him be not forfeited to the Government. In reply to this showcause, the petitioner admittedly did furnish explanation by submitting that his father had suffered a long drawn illness and the petitioner had to spend heavily on his treatment. It was also pleaded that his mother met a fatal accident and for all these reasons he remained mentally disturbed for quite long and thus could not devote his time and energy towards the construction of the building in question. In that reply, it was also pleaded by the petitioner that the time for the construction of the building be extended by another year. Somehow, this stand of the petitioner found no favour with the Estate Officer and the impugned order Annexure `A'' dated April 5, 1973 was passed resuming the plot and forfeiting the amount already deposited by him. On appeal by the petitioner, the Chief Administrator Urban Estates, vide his order dated June 20, 1973 varied the order of the Estate Officer, while maintaining the order of resumption he allowed refund of the surrender value of the plot. On a further revision under Section 11 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) the order of the Administrator was affirmed by the Secretary to Government, vide his impugned order dated July 20, 1973, Annexure `B''.

Now the challenge to the impugned orders Annexures `A'' and `B'' is two fold : (i) the notice issued to the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the abovenoted Act; and (ii) the first order dated April 5, 1973 Annexure `A'' passed by the Estate Officer is a non speaking order and does not show any applicability of mind by that authority.

On behalf of the respondentauthorities, it is pleaded that the orders are good and valid according to the provisions of abovenoted Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the notice issued to the petitioner is also in consonance with the provisions of the statute and Rules and the order Annexure `A'' does not suffer from any infirmity.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondentsauthorities in their return. Sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Act lays down in categorical terms that "the Estate Officer may, by notice in writing, call upon the transferee to show cause within a period of thirty days, why an order of resumption of the site or building, or both ... ... be not made." It is the admitted position that the petitioner was given only 15 days notice for this purpose. In fact this is so mentioned in the impugned order Annexure `A'' itself. Thus it is patent that the notice period or the notice itself was violative of the abovenoted provisions of sub section (3) of the Section 10 of the Act. Thus the notice was bad on this account alone.

Similarly, I find that the second contention of the learned counsel, as noticed above, is equally full of merit. The only line which deals with the reply or explanation of the petitioner in response to the notice issued to him is in the following words :

"The explanation given by the allottee to the showcause notice was duly considered and found to be unsatisfactory."

But for stating the history of the allotment, the terms of the allotment, no other word occurs in this order which in any manner deals with the stand taken by the petitioner. There is not even a reference to the prayer made by the petitioner for the extension of time for the completion of the building. Thus it is patent that the impugned order Annexure `A'' does not disclose any applicability of mind by the Estate Officer to the facts and circumstances pleaded by the petitioner. What was his explanation, why was it not satisfactory, what circumstances weighed with the Estate Officer in repelling the pleas raised by the petitioner and why was there not justification in the granting of time for the construction of building has neither been averted to nor has been stated anywhere in the impugned order. By now, it is well laid down that merely because the appellate or revisional authority has dealt with the case pleaded by a litigant before the Tribunal or the trial Court does not in any manner improve the original order or remove the infirmity in that order. Thus, I am satisfied that the order Annexure `A'' dated April 5, 1973 passed by the Estate Officer, Faridabad is wholly unsustainable and is quashed. As a necessary consequence, the subsequent orders in appeal and revision (Annexure `B'') too have to fall and are quashed. This however does not debar the Estate Officer to look into the merits of the petitioner''s explanation afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. What is expected of the said authority is that he should at least pass a speaking order after affording full opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. I pass no order as to costs.