IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.544 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.5.2010 Prem Kumar & another. -----Appellants Vs. Chandigarh Administration & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants --- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of L.P.A. Nos.544 and 545 of 2010 as both the appeals arise out of common order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petitions seeking restoration of plots allotted to the appellants which they had themselves surrendered. 2. In pursuance of Notice, Annexure P-1, the appellants were successful bidders for the plots in question. They deposited 25% of the amount but instead of paying the balance amount, they sought cancellation of allotment and reimbursement of the amount paid. However, instead of cancelling the allotment, the Administration resumed the plots on account of non-deposit of the instalments, as per conditions of the allotment. 10% of the amount deposited by the appellants was forfeited. Penalty equal to 10% of the amount was also imposed. On appeal, the extent of forfeiture was reduced to 2% of the premium due. Amount of LPA No.544 of 2010 penalty was also reduced to 2%. Amount deposited by the appellants towards the price of the plots was refunded to them. 3. Thereafter, writ petitions were filed in this Court with a prayer that the plots may be restored. This prayer was opposed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that resumption was as per terms of the allotment. On the same basis, forfeiture and penalty were also defended. Learned Single Judge after considering the matter held that prayer in the writ petition could not be accepted and no interference was called for by the Court. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. It is not disputed that the appellants failed to make payments as per terms of the allotment. They themselves did not want to continue as allottees of the plots and sought cancellation of allotment. This being the position, prayer in the writ petition for restoration of allotment of plots could not be accepted. No other argument has been advanced warranting interference with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 6. The appeals are dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 07, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2