CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 25 ,2011 Ashwani Arora .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and othe rs ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for HUDA. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A commercial plot in Sector 25, Panipat, was allotted to one M/s Pal Transport Service, Panipat on 4.2.1988. The proprietor of this concern, namely, Sh.Manmohan Singh, executed a general power of attorney on 15.11.1999 in favour of the present petitioner, authorising him to take care of the property. The petitioner accordingly approached the respondents with a request that in future CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: the correspondence in regard to this property be made with him at the address as given in the present petition. On 20.3.2002, an order, resuming the plot, was passed. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal with much delay on 18.2.2005. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision against this order, which was also dismissed on 22.9.2008. Aggrieved against these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The plea is that before taking the extreme action of depriving a person of his property, reasonable and fair opportunity is required to be afforded and such an opportunity is not finished by mere issuance of notices. Said notices should have been properly served and personal hearing should have been provided to the petitioner, which was statedly not done. In response to notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply. It is pointed out in the reply that appeal against the resumption order was passed with a delay of 2 years, which could only be filed within 30 days. Reference in this regard is made to the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, “the Act”). It is pointed out that after the allotment of this plot in favour of the original allottee, he was to deposit 75% of the cost of the plot in 8 half yearly instalments. The allottee, however, failed to deposit the amount as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Due to his failure to make payment, a notice dated 13.1.1995 under Section 17(1) of the Act, followed by another notice dated 5.11.1998 were served on the allottee. Still, another notices under Section 17(2) of the Act dated 20.4.1999 and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: 19.6.2001 were served. Then notices under Section 17(3) of the Act were also issued to the allottee from time to time and penalty of `28,105/- was imposed on 28.8.2001. It is then that a show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the Act was issued on 12.10.2001, which was also served on the allottee. The opportunity of being heard was also afforded under Section 17(4) of the Act vide order dated 15.1.2002. The allottee neither deposited the due amount nor appeared on the fixed date of hearing before HUDA authorities. In this background, the order resuming the plot vide memo No.4361 dated 20.3.2002 was passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat. Copies of various letters dated 13.1.1995, 19.2.1997, 5.11.1998, 20.4.1999, 19.6.2001, 21.8.2001, 12.10.2001 and 15.1.2002 have been annexed with the reply. It is thereafter that the petitioner had filed an appeal followed by revision, which have been dismissed. At the time of issuing notice of motion, the petitioner had made a submission before this Court that he was ready and willing to seek restoration of allotment on payment of current market price of the plot. The matter was also referred to Lok Adalat, where the same could not possibly be resolved. It is in this background that counsel appearing for respondent-HUDA was required to have instructions if the restoration of the allotted plot be made to the petitioner on payment of current market price. The counsel for HUDA, while disclosing the market price to be `30-35 lacs, also expressed unwillingness on the part of HUDA to allot the plot to the petitioner, which had been resumed long ago. It is seen that the petitioner is not an original allottee. He CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: is a power of attorney holder of the original allottee. Obviously, he appears to have an interest in this resumed plot. The consideration of making an allotment in favour of the original allottee in case he has defaulted in making the payment at the current market price has to be viewed differently. If a person has knowingly come to take an interest in the property of this nature, which was subject matter of resumption, his position has to be differently viewed. Once the respondent-HUDA has not expressed its willingness to accept the current market price, it may not be fair for this Court to invoke jurisdiction in equity to grant relief to the petitioner, who incidentally is not an original allottee. The submission that the resumption should be as a last resort, in this case can not strictly apply. Here sufficient opportunities were afforded to the allottee to appear and contest the notice of resumption. He not only failed to appear but even did not discharge the liability of payment of instalments. The respondents apparently would not be under much obligation to serve notice on the petitioner, who was attorney holder. It was for the allottee to instruct his attorney to appear on his behalf before the respondents in case he wanted to contest the proceedings of resumption, which were in progress. In view of the above, I am not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction to interfere in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE