Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27780 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amit Rohila Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned letter/order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,93,020/- as 10% surcharge over the total value of Plot No. CC-16 of Shraddhapuri Scheme - II.
The brief facts of the case are that vide letter dated 11.09.2012, the respondent no. 4 allotted the aforesaid Plot No. CC-16 admeasuring 161.17 square meters to one Shri Satish Kumar Sharma. After completing all the formalities, on 03.11.2014, a registered sale deed was executed by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut in favour of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma and the possession of the aforesaid plot was also handed over to him. On the same date, i.e., on 03.11.2014, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of the sale deed dated 03.11.2014, the name of the petitioner got mutated in the record of the respondents - Authority on 06.12.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was enjoying the fruits of the plot. The respondent no. 4, vide letter dated 06.06.2019, has asked the petitioner surcharge of Rs. 2,93,020/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter/order, the petitioner has preferred the writ proceedings.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Shri Bhupeshwar Dayal for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. With their consent, the writ petition is taken on the Board and the same is being decided at this stage finally in terms of the Rules of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any notice, nor any opportunity of being heard has been provided to him before passing the impugned order. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The petitioner has averred the said fact in paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, which reads as under:-
"11. That the impugned letter of demand has been issued in gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice. No notice or opportunity of hearing was provided petitioner before issuing impugned letter of demand."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 22754 of 2019 and an order passed today, i.e., 22.08.2019, in Writ C No. 23076 of 2019.
From the averments made in the writ petition and perusal of the record, it is evidently clear that there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any notice nor any opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
This Court in Writ C No. 22754 of 2019 has passed the following order:-
"In view of the above, it is shown by the petitioner that the order has been passed in utter disregard to the principle of natural justice. It is a trite law that if an order has a civil consequence, in that event the person against whom such order is passed is entitled for hearing. Hence, we find that the impugned order stands vitiated on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 06th June, 2019 passed by the fourth respondent and remit the matter back to the second respondent to consider it afresh and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation against the demand notice issued by the fourth respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The second respondent shall pass the appropriate order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner expeditiously.
Thus, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs."
Shri Bhupeshwar Dayal for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 has very fairly submitted that this writ petition be also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 06th June, 2019 passed by the respondent no. 4 and remit the matter back to the respondent no. 2 to consider it afresh and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.
The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation against the impugned demand notice 06.06.2019 before the respondent no. 2 within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent no. 2 shall pass an appropriate order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner expeditiously.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019/Amit Mishra