C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007.
Date of Decision : 02.12.2008.
Rohit Kumar Gosain
Petitioner.
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others.
Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
---
Present:- Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G.Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
---
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
M.M.KUMAR,J.
The instant petition is directed against order
dated 5.3.2007 passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon-
respondent No.3, raising demand of Rs. 17800/- plus
Rs.180700/-, which was required to be paid by 31.3.2007,
failing which necessary action was to follow. Another sum of
Rs.86,350/- on account of extension fee for delaying
construction upto 3.12.2007 has also been demanded. The
petitioner was admittedly allotted residential plot No. 599
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 2
Sector 31-32/A, Gurgaon vide allotment letter dated
17.4.1989 (Annexure P-1). He deposited 25% of the total
amount i.e. Rs.24, 750/-. However, there was irregularity in
making payment of six annual installments. As per Clause 6
of the allotment letter the balance amount was required to
be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days
from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual
installments together with 10% interest on the remaining
amount. He was required to raise construction within two
years from the date of offer of possession after approval of
the proposed building plans from the competent authority in
accordance with the regulations governing the erection of
building. On the excuse that offer of possession was not
made to the petitioner an attempt has been made to argue
that offer of possession having been made on 31.3.2007, the
extension fee could not have been levied from the earlier
date. Likewise, the rate of interest as contemplated under
Clause 24 of the allotment letter has been sought to be
revised.
In the written statement filed by respondent No.3,
it has been pointed out that offer of possession of the plot was
made to the petitioner on 25.3.1992 under a registered A.D.
letter at his correct address (Annexure R-3/1). Therefore, it
cannot be claimed that the offer of allotment has been made
in 1997 as per the assertion made by the petitioner. Further
submission of the petitioner that interest at the rate of 18%
per annum cannot be charged is also devoid of merits because
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 3
in case of default, Clause 24 would come in operation and
interest accordingly has to be charged. Learned counsel has
also disputed the statement of account placed on record by
respondent No.3 as Annexure R-5/5 by stating that there are
discrepancies.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we
find that the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to
be dismissed. Once the offer of possession dated 25.3.1992
(Annexure P-3/1) under registered A.D. cover has been issued
then the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he has not
received offer of possession or he has got possession on
8.9.1997. According to the provisions of Section 85 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 if a registered letter has been issued at
the correct address then presumption would arise that it has
reached to the addressee. Therefore, in the face of letter dated
25.3.1992 ( Annexure R-3/1) such a dispute cannot be raised.
Accordingly, the contention raised on the aforementioned
disputed fact is hereby rejected. Likewise, we do not find any
merit in the contention that lesser rate of interest then
stipulated in letter of offer of allotment is to be charged. The
petitioner has agreed to the terms and conditions of allotment
therefore there is no room for deviation from those terms
and conditions. However, question of calculation given in the
statement of account cannot be gone into by this Court and
for that matter petitioner may approach respondent No.3 for
reconciliation, if there is any discrepancy. He shall file
detailed representation within a period of two weeks to
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 4
respondent No.3 and if such assertion is made, respondent
No.3 shall pass detailed order within two weeks thereafter.
The rate of interest and all other ancillary matter has been
settled in the regular letter of allotment.
(M.M.KUMAR )
JUDGE
02.12.2008 ( JORA SINGH)
Anoop JUDGE
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 5
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 6
23529
Notice of the application.
Mr. Ashish Kapur
Learned State counsel accepts notice. He does not
raise any serious objection to the amendment sought in the
writ petition particularly in view of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 15199 of 2008 decided
on 25.11.2008.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. Amended
writ petition is taken on record.
Notice of the amended petition.
Mr. Kapoor learned State Counsel who is present in
Court accepts notice. Four copies of the paper book of the
amended petition alongwith complete documents given to him
during the course of the day.
Notice of motion to other respondents be served by
dasti process.
23431
This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
is allowed. Haryana Power Generation Corporatilon Limited,
through the Executive Enginer, R.G.T.P.P., H.P.G.C.L.,
Khedar (Hisar).
Mr. Rana shall also file reply on behalf of the added
respondents within two weeks with a copy in advance to the
learned opposite counsel before the date fixed.
List on 8.,1.2008.
Interim order to continue.
C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 7