LPA No.2292 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 2292 of 2011 Date of decision 15.12.2011 Dr. B.M.Abrol . Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.M.K.Dogra , 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 under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 19.7.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant- petitioner is not entitled to allotment of industrial plot at Gurgaon at the old rates. The aforesaid conclusion has been reached on the ground that the petitioner did not pay the price of the plot allotted to him on 21.7.1984. The tentative price of the plot measuring one acre at that time was Rs. 6,19,490/- which was to be paid in instalments as per terms of allotment letter (P.1). He took possession of the plot on 5.9.1985 and did not complete the project which resulted in issuance of memo dated 14.2.1990 intimating him for withdrawal of the allotment. He was also asked to seek refund of Rs. 1,61,693/- deposited by him (P.4). On appeal, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, granted him 180 days time to complete the formalities. He was still given another extension for completing the formalities upto 16.1.1991. Accordingly, he was asked to pay the price of the plot amounting to Rs. 37,04,584.90. The learned LPA No.2292 of 2011 2 Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellant-petitioner that industrial plot should be allotted to him on the original price fixed in 1984 for the reason that the appellant- petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of allotment. It was merely an offer which has never been accepted and no concluding contract has come into existence. In that regard reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge on the views expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chaman Lal Singhal v. HUDA and others AIR 2009 SC (Suppl.) 313. In the aforesaid judgement it has been held that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period cancelling of allotment would be consistent with the terms and conditions of allotment letter. Referring to Section 17 of the Haryana Urban development Authority Act, 1977; their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice would not apply in a case of this nature as there was no agreement/ contract because resumption and forfeiture is for breach of conditions of allotment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly without substance and is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 15.12.2011 Judge okg