CWP No.9817 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9817 of 1988 Date of Decision:- February 22, 2010 Kewal Krishan and another ...Petitioners VERSUS Union Territory of Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Satya Pal Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dheeraj Jain and Mr.Davesh Moudgal, Advocates for the petitioners. None for the respondents. ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The counsel for the petitioner is present and ready to argue the matter. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition challenges the order directing resumption of the property allotted to the petitioners on the alleged ground of delay in payment of 3rd installment. A show cause notice is said to have been issued on 21.5.1979 for the failure of the petitioner to deposit the 3rd installment of Rs.17,605.56 before 2.12.1978, the date when the amount fell due. The order of resumption is said to have been issued on 10.7.1979 without prior notice and appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 had been allowed on 5.3.1982 setting aside the resumption, however imposing a condition that the petitioner should pay the amount of the 3rd installment within 30 days from the date of the order. In the meantime, the petitioner had deposited Rs.10,000/- on 9.5.1980 and another sum of Rs.6,005.56 on CWP No.9817 of 1988 -2- 20.1.1982 and another sum of Rs.3,862.50 on the same day. The petitioner claimed that in order to avoid the risk of being charged as having not paid the entire amount, the petitioner had sent another draft for Rs.9,255/- on 21.5.1982 but the draft had been returned. The refusal to receive the amount was said to be in view of the fact that the amount as directed by the Appellate Authority had not been paid in full within the prescribed time. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had calculated further interest and made several payments which were received till the time when the writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out subsequent to filing of the petition, the petitioner paid through demand drafts totalling Rs.63136/- on 5.2.1998 and another draft for Rs.28136/- on the same date. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner have stated that all the payments have been made and no further amount remains payable. There is no appearance for the respondent before this Court to oppose any of the contentions of the petitioner. The impugned order purporting to cancel the allotment issued by the Chief Administrator, U.T. on 21.10.1998 is quashed. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is always willing to pay any amount, which is lawfully calculated and if put to notice to the petitioner. The statement of the learned counsel is placed on record for the petitioner to make any payment without demur, if ever demand is made with lawful justification. 5. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. February 22, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE