IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19864 of 2006 Date of Decision:21.1.2008 Gagandeep ...Petitioner Versus Yuvak Kalyan Co-op House Building Society Ltd. Etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Miss Kamal Preet, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Harish Rahtee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and 6. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for respondent No.5. -.- JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) By filing this writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge to the letter dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P-4) vide which plot allotted to the petitioner, in the year 1991 was purposed to be cancelled. He h`as also laid challenge to the letter dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure P-5) vide which, in fact, plot was cancelled. Further challenge is to the order Annexure P-7 dismissing appeal of the petitioner being time barred. Admitted facts are that in the year 1991 plot bearing no. 29-B, measuring 120 Sq. yards was allotted to the petitioner vide Annexure P-1. Petitioner had paid entire amount of consideration for sale i.e. Rs. 6020/-. In the year 1993, he was intimated vide letter dated 12.2.1993 (Annexure P-2) that some complaint has been filed against allotment order made to the petitioner and he was advised not to sell the plot in question till that complaint was decided. Matter kept on pending before the competent authority and it was only in the year 2005 when the petitioner was asked to appear before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Nariangarh and after hearing him, it was ordered that allotment made to him was wrong as in the sanctioned scheme plot C.W.P. No. 19864 of 2006 -2- no. 29-B was not in existence and further that 16 more persons were ahead of the petitioner in the waiting list. It was further ordered that plot allotted to the petitioner be cancelled vide letter dated 27.10.2005. Petitioner went in appeal which admittedly was time barred. By taking note of the same vide order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure P-7), it was dismissed. Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it was not justified for the appellate authority to dismiss his appeal on limitation. When appeal was filed, application for condonation of delay was also moved. Without considering the same, appeal was dismissed. She prays that this writ petition be allowed, Annexure P-7 be set aside and matter be remitted to the appellate authority for decision afresh. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is very surprising that after allotment, the complaint made was kept pending for a period of more than 12 years and it was taken up for decision only in the year 2005 and it was ordered that the plot allotted to the petitioner be cancelled. Where as to the contrary for a delay of few months, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, which is altogether unreasonable attitude adopted by the appellate authority. Ordinarily, matters are required to be decided on merits, unless on account of lapse of time some right has accrued to any individual, no such fact has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, set aside the order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure P-7) and remit the matter to the appellate authority to decide it afresh. Bar of limitation, for filing the appeal stands condoned. Appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal within a period of two months, as per law. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 25.2.2008. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 21.1.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge