Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Rajiv Vohra against the State of Haryana and others, confirming the resumption order passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA. The appellant was the successful bidder in an open auction held on 7 March 1996 for a booth in Faridabad, with a sale consideration of Rs 7,55,000. He paid 10% as bid money and an additional 15% within 30 days, but failed to pay the balance. Possession was delivered on 6 May 1996, and an allotment letter was issued on 10 May 1996. Despite multiple notices from HUDA between 1996 and 2000, the appellant defaulted, leading to a resumption order on 2 February 2001. The appellant's appeal to the Administrator, HUDA was allowed on 4 January 2011, subject to clearing dues and paying a penalty of Rs 2 lakhs. The appellant paid Rs 7,00,000, but the revision filed by HUDA was allowed, restoring the resumption order. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, noting that 20 years had elapsed and the appellant failed to comply with allotment terms. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant was a rank defaulter, having paid only 25% of the sale consideration, and despite multiple opportunities, continued to default. The Court also observed that the appellant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Ajay Pal four months after the resumption order, which appeared to be an assignment of litigation. The Court rejected the appellant's plea under Article 142, stating it cannot protect an unscrupulous buyer. The Court confirmed the resumption order and directed that the Rs 20 lakhs deposited by the appellant be withdrawn by HUDA towards occupation charges, with any surplus returned to the appellant with 6% interest, and any deficit recoverable through appropriate proceedings.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Auction Allotment - Default in Payment - Rank defaulter not entitled to relief despite multiple opportunities - The appellant paid only 25% of sale consideration and defaulted on balance despite notices - Held that a rank defaulter is not entitled to any relief (Paras 10-11). B) Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Scope - Cannot be invoked to protect unscrupulous buyer - The appellant sought relief under Article 142 after willful default and assignment of GPA - Held that Article 142 cannot protect an unscrupulous buyer who took possession by paying only 25% and willfully defaulted (Para 14). C) Property Law - General Power of Attorney - Assignment of Litigation - Execution of GPA after resumption order - The appellant executed GPA in favour of Ajay Pal four months after resumption - Held that such GPA appears to be an assignment of litigation by the appellant (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a rank defaulter in payment of sale consideration for an auctioned booth, is entitled to relief against resumption order after 23 years of possession and multiple defaults
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; resumption order confirmed; Rs 20 lakhs deposited by appellant to be withdrawn by HUDA towards occupation charges; any surplus returned with 6% interest; any deficit recoverable through appropriate proceedings
Law Points
- Rank defaulter not entitled to relief
- Article 142 cannot protect unscrupulous buyer
- General Power of Attorney assignment as litigation tactic
