1. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) - Cancellation of allotment - It was clearly stated that in the event of failure  of the petitioner to deposit 15% of the auction money within the stipulated period, the allotment would be cancelled and the 10% of the bid money deposited at the time of auction would be forfeited to the HUDA - That being the situation, receipt of the letter of  allotment was inconsequential and in the situation, the Estate Officer was left with no other option but to order cancellation of the  allotment. (173) P.L.R.  0
  2. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) - Compound interest - No statute or regulation or the regulations entitling the appellants to charge compound interest.  (182) P.L.R.
  3. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) - If the action of the authorities is void ab initio - Civil Court jurisdiction cannot be barred.  (173) P.L.R.  
  4. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) - It was show cause notice which was challenged before the trial Court as it did not entail into passing of the final order and in case such order had been challenged, Civil Court - Would be having jurisdiction. (182) P.L.R.
  5. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) - Lease -  Expiry of - Merely because the lease has not been extended, will not confer any enforceable right on the petitioner to seek extension of lease in terms of policy/guidelines - The policy/guidelines are not statutory and are issued for uniform application to avoid have arbitrariness but such policy guidelines do not confer any enforceable right in favour of lessee - Will not be entitled to seek conversion of fixed period lease after its expiry into prepetual lease.  (178) P.L.R.  
  6. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) - Resumption of Plot - Plea that the installments could not be deposited due to financial crises, cannot be accepted as the authorities like the respondent-HUDA who have allotted the plot, cannot continue with the regulated development on mere assurance. (176) P.L.R.  
  7. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 12 - Wherein allotment has been cancelled on account of non-deposit of 15% of the auction money within the stipulated period - Neither the principles of natural justice are liable to be observed nor provisions of Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 are  attracted. (173) P.L.R.  0
  8. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17 - Interest - Court of first appeal reduced the interest from compound to simple awarding the rate at 10% per annum - A direction stands issued to defendant HUDA to serve a fresh calculation sheet on the plaintiff within one month and thereafter the plaintiff was called upon to deposit the balance amount with 10% interest within one month, failing which the defendant-HUDA was set at liberty to proceed against the plaintiff respondent as per law.  (179) P.L.R.  
  9. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17 - Provisions mandatory - Deposed about sending notice notices through Registered Post - Did not have any document from which he could say as to when the registered letters were sent nor does he has any proof regarding acknowledgment of receipt of these registered letters sent to the respondent-plaintiff - In the absence of any proof with regard to the service of the notices upon the respondent-plaintiff, it cannot be said that he has been granted reasonable opportunity to put forth his assertion.  (182) P.L.R.
  10. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17 - Resumption - A mere delay in payment of installments could not have invited such a harsh penalty as that of resumption when the plaintiff was protected by article 300-A of the Constitution of India.  (179) P.L.R.  
  11. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17 - Resumption - In the appeal preferred against the resumption order, the Administrator, HUDA passed a whimsical arbitrary and stereotyped order where non-application of mind is writ large - If there was transaction of sale of property - Then fairness demands that an opportunity should have been offered to the allottee whether he was a GPA holder alone or a vendee of the allottee - There could be no assumptions or presumptions of sale without confronting the allottee with this suspicion in the mind of HUDA before resuming the property - The requirement of recording proper reasons by the authorities when passing orders adversely affecting the civil rights of a person is an important facet of the rule of law and a substantive safeguard against arbitrary action.  (179) P.L.R.  
  12. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17 - Resumption - Where the procedure of due service on plaintiff in accordance with rule prescribed was not adhered to, then opportunity of hearing offered ex post facto at statutory appeal stage is not in accordance with law and as one not conforming to the principles of natural justice, while on the other hand is in clear breach of duty.  (179) P.L.R.  
  13. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17(3), 55 - On comparative reading of the aforementioned provisions and as well as terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the alleged mischief of trading of Scooter and as well as elevation of opening doors and window on the front and elevation of the building do not fall within the purview of Sub Section 3 Section 17, thus, respondents-plaintiffs have not been confronted with regard to such alleged violation - As per statute, HUDA was required to issue the notice under Section 55 of the HUDA Act. (182) P.L.R.
  14. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17(3) - Industrial Plot - Resumption of - Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- towards extension fee - The respondents accepted and appropriated the same - They have not returned the same till date - This also indicates that the respondents had condoned the initial delay - Having condoned the delay it is not open to the respondents to resume the plot on the ground of the initial period of delay - Relying upon and pursuant to the approved building plans, the petitioner altered his position to his detriment inter-alia by investing the amount towards construction upon the plot and not purchasing another  plot - Petitioner had by his letter sought an extension of time - The same was not considered instead plot resumed - Order set aside.  (180) P.L.R.  
  15. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 17(8) - State government set aside the forfeiture of amount for the reason that the site was having multiple encumbrances - It was also found that the allottee was equally negligent in not seeking refund of amount deposited with HUDA when encumbrances/impediment over site were noticed by it during the course of delivery of possession - Petitioner having taken possession of the site in question, in the face of the encumbrances, is estopped to dispute the existence of encumbrances so to claim interest on the deposit made by it. (179) P.L.R.  
  16. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 42(1)(d)(iii) - Cancellation of allotment - Service of notice - Provisions deals with notice to the allottee about any notice, order or other document and in case the registered letter sent to a person is received back undelivered, provision of Section 42(1)(d)(iii) will automatically come in operation - In the present case though the notice was sent through registered post to the allottee but it was never delivered and was returned back to the sender with the remarks "bidder is out of station and not known when he will come back" - Once such report has come to the notice of the appellant HUDA, the authority was required to invoke the procedure as laid down in Section 42(1)(d)(iii) and such notice should have been affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business - By not adhering to this provision, the HUDA has failed to comply the requirement of Section 42(1)(d)(iii).(177) P.L.R.  
  17. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 50 - Bar of jurisdiction of civil court - Will not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the claim of an allottee which is not contemplated under the Act - The order of resumption and the order of forfeiture are the orders passed under the Act - But concededly, the Act does not deal with the grant of interest to an allottee claimed on the amount deposited - Therefore, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Act may not be the bar in respect of the claim of the petitioner to claim of interest from the Civil Court. (179) P.L.R.  
  18. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 50 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - If the impugned action/order is found to be or based upon violation of the mandatory provisions of law and the principles of natural justice having not been followed, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction.  (182) P.L.R.
  19. Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977) S. 50 - Jurisdiction of the Civil Court - No such plea was taken in the written statement and no issue to that effect was framed - No arguments were addressed before both the courts below - Had not challenged cancellation of provisional letter of allotment as such before the civil court as his plea is that the order was never served upon him - It was passed at his back - He had approached the court when advertisement for sale of the plot already allotted to him had been issued - Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the civil court did not have the jurisdiction. (176) P.L.R.