CHAMAN LAL SINGHAL versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1045 
CHAMAN LAL SINGHAL 
A 
v. 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 803 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
·i' 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT: 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY c 
ACT, 1977: 
S. 17 - Allotment of land - Delay in depositing 15% of 
the amount -
Consequent cancellation of the land -
Justification of - Held: Rejection of representation by the 
D 
Estate Officer not proper- Matter remanded to the Chairman 
of HUDA for considering the representation in accordance 
with law and as expeditiously as possible. 
In this appeal against the judgment of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court, the question that arose for 
E 
consideration was whether the land allotted to the 
~ppellant could have been cancelled in the manner in 
which it was done by respondent-Authority (HUDA). 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
F 
the Chairman, HUDA, the Court 
HELD:1. A bare perusal of. the aforesaid relevant 
clauses of the allotment letter would indicate that the 
balance amount of the cost price i.e. Rs. 5,39,4841- could 
be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days 
G 
from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual 
...... 
installments which were recoverable in terms of the 
Schedule given in clause 6 of the aforesaid allotment 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 
A letter. [Para 14] [1055-D-E] 
2. The appellant failed to comply with the aforesaid 
clauses of the letter of allotment and, therefore, his 
allotment stood cancelled and the earnest money 
8 deposited by him could be forfeited by the Authority. The 
order of cancellation came to be passed by the 
competent authority after 500 days. The allotment of plot 
of land in favour of the appellant came to be cancelled 
because of non-payment of the amount as stipulated in 
clause 5 and, therefore, the earnest money deposited by 
C him could be forfeited by the Authority. Since the case of 
the appellant comes within the ambit of clauses 4 and 5 
of the allotment letter, the provisions of Section 17 of the 
Act would have no application and would not apply. It is 
thus established that there was no agreemenUcontract 
D between the appellant and the respondent-Authority and 
there being no such agreemenUcontract and because of 
non-compliance of requirement of clause 5 the issue with 
regard to violation of principles of natural justice also 
would not arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that 
E provisions of Section 17 of the Act are violated and that 
there is non-compliance of the principles of natural 
justice. [Para 15] [1055-G-H; 1056-A-C] 
3. It is, however, explicit from the records that there 
F is an instruction of the respondent-Authority in terms of 
which delay in depositing 15% price up to 150 days could 
be condoned by the Chief Administrator, HUDA and that 
the Chairman of HUDA is competent to condone the delay 
beyond 150 days if he is satisfied that the allottee failed 
G to deposit 15% of the amount due to the reasons which 
were beyond his control. The revisional authority while 
disposing of the revision petition also granted such a 
-,.... ~ 
liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate 
authority for restoration of the plot and for condonation 
H of the delay in depositing 15% price of the plot. The 
CHAMAN LAL SINGHAL v. HARYANA URBAN DEVE. 
1047 
AUTHORITY & ORS. 
appellant availed the said opportunity provided by the 
A 
revisional authority but his representation came to be 
dismissed by the Estate Officer on the ground that his 
appeal and the revision petition stood dismissed. The 
aforesaid disposal of the representation by the Estate 
Officer was not proper, for the Estate Officer while 
B 
disposing of the said representation did not at all deal 
with or mention as to whether or not the same was a case 
for condonation of delay in depositing the 15% amount. 
Besides, in terms of the aforesaid departmental 
instruction it is the Chief Administrator who is required c 
to consider the said representation initially and if it is a 
case of delay of more than 150 days the same is required 
to be considered by the Chairman, HUDA. In the instant 
case, in terms of the records available the said 
representation was rejected by the Estate Officer and, 
D 
therefore, such disposal was not in accordance with law. 
[Paras 16 and 17] (1056-D-F; 1057-A-B] 
4. The order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and 
Harya

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.