Surya Kant, J.@mdashThe petitioners seek quashing of order dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by HUDA, resuming the site SCF No. 6,
Sector-15, Panchkula, purchased by them in an open auction. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dismissing their appeal against the
aforesaid resumption order. The petitioners being the highest bidders were allotted the subject site by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula vide
allotment letter No. 4524 dated 20.4.1989 (Annexure P-1) on the stipulated terms and conditions, some of which being relevant are reproduced
below:
21. All payment shall be made by means of the demand draft payable to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula
draw on any scheduled bank situated at Panchkula.
22. No separate notice will be sent for payment of instalments. However, (illegible)ation regarding the instalment the amount, the due date etc. may
be sent (illegible) of courtesy.
Half yearly instalments of Rs. as under will fall due on 20th April to 20th October every year, as under:-
(emphasis applied)
2. Since the petitioners failed to deposit the due instalments, HUDA issued show cause notices u/s 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977 (hereinafter
referred to as ''the Act'') and thereafter resumed the site. The aggrieved petitioners preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 6.9.2000.
Still aggrieved, they preferred revision petition before the State Government, which was allowed conditionally vide order dated 3.12.2001
(Annexure P-8), the operative part whereof reads as under:
I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted fact that the allottees have failed to deposit the price of the
site as per the given schedule. However they have occupied the building on the site without prior permission. The parties have not paid the
principal amount as yet. Hence their arguments about quantum of interest on delayed payment is irrelevant at this stage. However keeping in mind
the assurance of prompt payment of all the dues, I give them a chance with the condition that outstanding dues along with interest as per policy of
HUD A are to be deposited by the petitioners within three months from the date so conveyed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, within the
given time, resumption order passed by the administrator on 06.09.2000 would prevail without any further (illegible) to the petitioner.
(emphasis by us)
3. In compliance to the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the Estate Officer, Panchkula, vide notice dated 1.1.2002 (Annexure P-9) raised
a demand of Rs. 28,24,700/- to be deposited by the petitioners within a period of three months. The petitioners however, did not pay the
aforesaid amount and disputed the claim raised by the Estate Officer. Their counsel sent reply dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure P-10) claiming that about
Rs. 16 lacs had already been deposited by the petitioners which was not accounted for and the demand was based upon wrong calculation. The
Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, vide second memo dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure P-11) informed the petitioners that their account was again
checked and after adjusting the amount deposited in November, 2000 and on 3rd January, 2001, a sum of Rs. 20,65,485/- was due towards
them.
4. The petitioners, however, chose not to make any payment pursuant to the aforesaid or subsequent notices issued to them. Consequently, the
resumption order passed against them revived.
5. The petitioners thereafter resorted to another round of litigation and instituted a Civil Suit in the Civil Courts at Panchkula. Their suit was
dismissed. On an appeal preferred by them, the 1st Appellate Court decreed their suit. The HUDA Authorities preferred RSA No. 2934 of 2008,
which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-12) holding that the Civil Suit was not maintainable as jurisdiction of
the Civil Court is expressly barred by Section 50 of the Act.
6. The petitioners preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which was also declined.
7. In this third round of litigation, the petitioners have again impugned the resumption and appellate orders contending that the demand raised by
HUDA pursuant to the order passed by the Revisional Authority included ""compound/penal"" interest at the rate of 18% instead of simple interest
@ 10% as was required to be charged in terms of HUDA Policy as well as the terms and conditions of allotment letter. It is also urged that the
petitioners are ready and willing even now to deposit the due amount along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
8. Respondents have filed their reply maintaining that the petitioners are chronic and habitual defaulters and did not deposit even a single due
instalment despite series of show cause notices served on 16.10.1991, 15.9.1992, 22.10.1992, 11.2.1993, 17.1.1996, 24.1.1996, 26.7.1999
and 14.10.1999 u/s 17 of the Act.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have carefully gone through the record.
10. The un-disputable legal position is that the intense obligations arising out of a bilateral agreement shall be governed by the conditions contained
in such agreement subject to overriding effect of provisions contained in the statute if any, regulating such agreements. It may be seen that the
petitioners were required to deposit the due instalments on the dates specified in the allotment letter itself for which ""no separate notice"" was
required to be served on them. The petitioners failed to deposit even a single instalment as per the schedule mentioned in Clause 23 of the
allotment letter. They did not adhere to the payment schedule despite show-cause notices issued to them, referred to in para 9 above. The
Revisional Authority vide its order dated 3.12.2001 (Annexure P-8) went out of the way and came to their rescue and by giving them another
chance to clear the outstanding dues alongwith interest as per policy of HUDA. There is no denial to the fact that no payment whatsoever was
made by the petitioners even after the abovementioned revisional order.
11. The question whether the interest sought to be charged by HUDA was in excess or contrary to its policy would have been gone into at the
instance of the petitioners provided that they had offered the payment of at least the principal amount. The record reveals that in the Civil suit filed
by the petitioners, they acknowledged vide Annexure P-3 that as on 20.4.1993, namely, that date when the last instalment was to be deposited by
them as per terms and conditions of allotment, the due principal amount was Rs. 7,50,375/-. Assuming mat the petitioners were not liable to pay
any interest, no convincing explanation has come forth as to why even the principal amount was not .deposited by them? Had there been any bona
fide intention to retain the property or clear the dues, the petitioners would have offered the demanded amount under protest and thereafter seek
redressal of their grievance before an appropriate forum.
12. The belated offer now made by the petitioners lacks bona fide. We are conscious of the fact the steep rise in the prices real estate, especially in
Tricity Chandigarh (including Panchkula) has now prompted the petitioners to make this offer, which cannot be accepted as the petitioners have
not approached this Court with clean hands as they have been dragging the respondents in litigation for speculative consideration.
13. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction.
Dismissed.