LPA No. 683 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 683 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2010 The Administrator New Mandi Township, Haryana. ..Appellant Versus Subhash Chander and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Hariom Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) CM No. 1987 of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions and CM disposed of. CM No. 1988 of 2010 Heard. Delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned and CM disposed of. LPA No. 683 of 2010 1. This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.2.2010 by which the learned Single Judge set aside the order of resumption impugned in the writ petition and directed that the amount of defaulted instalments namely of Rs. 5,162.50 which had fallen due on 30.3.1980 shall be paid with interest @ 18% from the date when it fell due till date and that amount shall be deposited within two LPA No. 683 of 2010 (O&M) [2] weeks from the date of the impugned order and in case the amount is not paid, the petitioners shall forfeit the allotment and the order of resumption already passed shall stand confirmed. 2. The brief facts giving arise to the present petition are that the writ petitioners purchased a plot No. II-107 for a sum of Rs. 17,500/- in Mandi Ellanabad in an open auction. 1/4th of the auction price i.e. Rs. 4375/- were paid on the spot. Balance amount was to be paid in three instalments. The first instalment was deposited by them on 29.6.1979 but they failed to deposit the second instalment. They were served with a notice by the appellant herein for making the due payment but the writ petitioners failed to deposit the same, therefore, the appellant herein resumed the plot on 28.3.1982. The appeal as well as the revision petition filed by the writ petitioners having failed, thus, the writ petition bearing No. 4094/87 was filed by him in the Court challenging the order passed by the revisional authority. That writ petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 3.2.2010 which order has been impugned in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition granting the respondents (writ petitioners) the opportunity to make the payment in a manner similar to that granted to two other allottees. The learned Single Judge has gone into the facts of the two allottees who were granted an opportunity and found that their cases were similar to that of the respondents. 3. The main ground taken by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Hariom Sharma is that the prayer in the writ petition was faulty as the writ petitioners had challenged the order of revisional LPA No. 683 of 2010 (O&M) [3] authority only and there was no prayer for setting aside the resumption order. It was also urged that none of the pleas raised by the appellant was dealt with by the learned Single Judge. No other issue was urged. 4. The learned Single Judge order clearly deals with the pleas of the appellant and to contend that none of the pleas was dealt with by the learned Single Judge is not correct. Furthermore, the appellant's counsel Shri Hariom Sharma has been unable to demonstrate how the two defaulting allottees who were granted an opportunity to clear arrears were differently situated than the respondents. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the plea taken by the appellant is highly technical because it is well settled law that the original order challenged in proceedings merges in the order of the appellate authority/revisional authority. Moreover, the learned Single Judge while granting the relief has taken note of the fact that the appellate authority had granted the relief claimed in the writ petition to two other similar situated persons, therefore, the learned Single Judge following the principle of parity granted the same relief to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 26.05.2010 'ravinder'