IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
FAO 155 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 18, 2008
MRS.TRIPTA ARORA ....... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. PK Mutneja, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. DK Jangra, Advocate, for the respondents.
AJAI LAMBA, J.
Mrs.Tripta Arora has filed this First Appeal against Order,
which is directed against the judgment dated 14.8.2006 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Panchkula.
The facts are that the appellant was the highest bidder for site
No.4, Sector 15, Panchkula, measuring 250 square meter, for a
consideration of Rs.24,60,000/-. As per the terms of auction, 10% of the
actual price was deposited with the respondents on the date of auction
itself. 15% of the amount was to be paid within 30 days from the date of
issuance of allotment letter and balance 75% of the amount was to be paid
in 8 half yearly instalments. Allotment letter was issued on 20.11.2002 and,
FAO 155 of 2007 2
therefore, as per the terms of auction known to the appellant, 15% of the
amount was to be deposited by 19.12.2002. Rather than depositing the
amount in terms of auction, the appellant filed objections with regard to
adjacent site bearing No.3, which was auctioned on the same day for a
lesser amount. The ground for non-depositing the amount in terms of
auction is that there was a fraud in auction proceedings, which was
brought to the notice of the higher authorities and a representation to that
effect was given on 19.12.2002, which was not decided. Again, a
representation was given on 18.8.2003 but no action was taken. The case
of the appellant, however, is that she was ready and willing to deposit the
amount though no such deposit was made. Admittedly, the terms of
auction were violated by the appellant. Rather, no further deposit had
been made till the filing of this appeal.
CWP 5184 of 2004 was filed which, however, was withdrawn
with liberty to avail the remedy of arbitration in terms of clause 20 of the
allotment letter. The Arbitrator announced the award on 30.12.2005
rejecting the claim of the appellant.
The award was challenged on a number of grounds including
misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator and also allegations of bias.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before
this Court is that the appellant is entitled to the relief because she being a
model citizen had brought the fraud to the notice of the authorities and she
was ready and willing to make the payment of 15% amount, however, the
payment was not made because the objections were not decided.
Another issue raised is that till date, the allotment of the site
FAO 155 of 2007 3
has not been cancelled and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the relief
claimed.
The Additional District Judge considered all the issues and
came to the conclusion that it did not lie with the Arbitrator to order that
the site be put to auction afresh. To that extent, the award has been held
to be beyond the scope of arbitration.
On facts, the award has been upheld as being legal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the
appellant was required to make payment of 15% of the balance sale
consideration by 19.12.2002, which was not done. Even the subsequent
instalments were not paid. In my opinion, any objection made with regard
to auction of another site (in which the petitioner had not even
participated) could not be a reasonable ground for the appellant, who was
the auction purchaser, not to make the payment in terms of the auction
under which the site had been purchased. The non cancellation of
allotment letter would not give any right to the appellant to claim the site
at the rate at which it was purchased in the year 2002 in auction.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a judgment of
this Court in Smt.Sandhya Jindal v. The State of Haryana and others, 1996
(3) PLR 614.
I have gone through the judgment and find that in the cited
case, after deposit of 10% of the bid amount, the allottee had been issued a
notice that the allotment made in her favour had been cancelled and 10%
amount deposited by her forfeited. Aggrieved by the cancellation, an
appeal was filed with the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development
FAO 155 of 2007 4
Authority, on the ground that she had not received formal confirmation of
allotment and there was no default on her part in making payment of the
amount. She expressed her willingness to pay 50% value of the plot with
interest, as per rules. Her appeal remained pending with the appellate
authority for about 9 months when it was dismissed. She being dis-
satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, a revision was filed,
which had not been decided by the Government. The revision was
dismissed during the pendency of the writ petition. Challenge in the writ
petition was to the cancellation of allotment letter, the orders passed by
the appellate and revisional authorities on the ground of violation of the
provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act and the
provisions of natural justice.
Primarily, the case of the petitioner in the cited case was that
the letter which was adverse to the interest of the petitioner was never
received by her and she had no knowledge of the requirement of deposit
of Rs.39,000/- up to 30.4.1992, therefore, the Estate Officer was not
justified in invoking clause-4 of the allotment letter. The jurisdiction of
the Estate Officer to pass the order was also challenged. In para-14 of the
judgment, this Court has noticed that no notice or opportunity of hearing
was afforded to the petitioner before the order of cancellation had been
passed and, therefore, the order of cancellation of allotment was void on
the ground of principles of natural justice. It has also been noticed in
para-15 of the judgment that the functionaries of HUDA had not verified
that the letter dispatched to the petitioner had been delivered to her or not.
The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. The
FAO 155 of 2007 5
appellant all through knew about the conditions of auction and her
liability to pay 15% of the amount within 30 days of the issuance of letter
of allotment. The amount was not paid on the premise that some other
plot had been sold for a lesser amount and, therefore, there was suspicion
of some fraud in the auction proceedings. To my mind, this ground is not
sufficient to entitle the appellant not to make the payment in terms of
conditions governing the auction proceedings. The objections themselves
were filed on the last date i.e. 19.12.2002. No deposit thereafter had been
made. The objections with regard to auction of another site would be
dehors the terms and conditions that govern the auction of the site for
which the appellant had joined.
I do not find any illegality in the arbitral award or the
impugned judgment. The reasons given in the impugned judgment do not
call for interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Some deposit had been made during the pendency of this
appeal, which has not been withdrawn by the respondents.
Accordingly, in view of the above, no ground for interference
is made out.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The appellant would be at liberty to take back the amount
deposited in this Court during the pendency of the appeal.
January 18, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE