AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ for setting aside the order/notice dated 02.10.2017 issued by respondent No.2 for payment of enhanced compensation and order/notice dated 14.08.2017 issued to petitioner No.5 for payment of enhanced compensation.
In the present petition, prayer with respect to two plots has been made. The first prayer which has been made is with respect to Plot No.1984-P, Sector 23, Urban Estate, Sonepat, which is stated to be owned by petitioners No.1 to 4 by the petitioners. The second plot is Plot No.311-SP, Sector 23, Urban Estate, Sonepat, which is stated to be owned by petitioner No.5.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that qua petitioners No.1 to 4, in the present petition it has not been disclosed that a resumption order dated 19.05.2017 was passed by the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonepat with respect to Plot No.1984-P, Sector 23, Urban Estate, Sonepat and against the said resumption order, an appeal was filed by petitioner No.1 on 30.01.2019 and vide order dated 14.05.2019, the Administrator, HSVP, Rohtak, had allowed the said appeal after condoning the delay but had directed petitioner No.1 to pay the outstanding dues within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the calculations from the Estate Officer, HSVP, failing which the resumption order dated 19.05.2017 was ordered to remain in force. The order dated 14.05.2019 has been handed over to the Court, which is taken on record as Mark A. It is submitted that the respondents had informed the petitioners about the amount due on 09.09.2020 and the petitioners being dissatisfied with the same had challenged the said calculations before the consumer forum and the Consumer Court at the first instance had allowed his Consumer Complaint No.68 and against the said order, the respondents had preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the operation of the order passed by the Consumer Court had been stayed. It is submitted that none of the said facts have been disclosed by petitioners No.1 to 4 in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, petitioners No.1 to 4 be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all pleas/defences before the State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as far as petitioner No.5 is concerned, she had deposited the enhanced amount as per the impugned letter under protest but no detailed calculation was supplied to the petitioner nor it was shown as to how the amount of ₹2,02,919/- is chargeable from the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents, as per their policy, are giving 40% rebate to the defaulters, however, in the case of the petitioner, who had bonafidely deposited the amount under protest, no rebate is being offered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, petitioner No.5 be permitted to file a representation to respondent No.2 giving all the said facts and that respondent No.2 be directed to consider the said representation as expeditiously as possible and sympathetically.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in case any such representation is made, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner No.5 and/or her representative.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition regarding petitioners No.1 to 4 is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid and the petition regarding petitioner No.5 is disposed of in the following terms:
It would be open to petitioner No.5 to file a representation to respondent No.2 giving all the reasons for sympathetic consideration. The said representation be filed within a period of three weeks from today.
Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the said representation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date the said representation is made, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or her representative and by passing a speaking order and in case, petitioner No.5 is found entitled to the relief, the same be granted to her as expeditiously as possible.