LPA No. 1945 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1945 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision 7.12.2011 Jasbir Singh Bhadana . Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.SS Bhadana , Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 23.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant-petitioner after requesting and obtaining refund in respect of the allotment of plot could not later seek restoration of the plot. According to the learned Single Judge the rejection of such a request vide memo letter dated 14.3.2006 (P.12) did not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is pertinent to notice that the appellant- petitioner was allotted residential plot No. 2265 measuring 14 marlas in Sector 2, Palwal, District Faridabad on 18.2.1998 on free hold basis. The price of the plot fixed was Rs. 1548/- per square meter. The total value worked out was Rs. 4,64,700/-. An amount of Rs. 46,470/- was deposited by him being 10 percent of the sale consideration. The other 15% of the total consideration was also deposited as per terms of the allotment within 30 days from the date of allotment which amounted to Rs. 69,705/-. The balance amount of 75 % could have been deposited within 60 days without LPA No. 1945 of 2011 2 interest or in half yearly instalments with interest @ 15%. It appears that the respondents demanded enhanced price of Rs. 62,431.20 and another amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- was deposited by the petitioner on 4.12.2000 and 19.2.2002 respectively. On account of lack of development in the area and also on an excuse of lack of basic amenities, the petitioner asked for refund of the amount deposited by him on 2.5.2003 (P.2). He was informed on 23.7.2003 (P.3) that development work was complete and if he was interested in refund of the amount the same could be refunded after 10% deduction of the total consideration as per the terms of allotment. Accordingly, the appellant- petitioner insisted for refund and the respondents refunded the amount of Rs. 5,42,100/-. It was lateron that the appellant- petitioner changed his mind and sought restoration of the plot. 2. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot approbate and repprobate in the same breath. If he has exercised the option to seek refund then he cannot again ask for restoration of the plot. The view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal is without any merit and does not warrant admission. Dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, there is no necessity on passing of application seeking condonation of delay. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 7.12.2011 Judge okg