LPA No.1018 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1018 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.7.2011 Siri Krishan ...Appellant Versus Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against order of resumption of plot allotted to the appellant. 2. Case of the appellant is that he was allotted a plot of one acre by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) on 31.1.1973. The petitioner paid nine out of ten installments with interest but he was not given possession. On 25.2.1983, resumption notice was issued to the appellant on account of default in payment of final installment 1 LPA No.1018 of 2011 alongwith cheque towards refund of the amount already paid. The appellant applied for recall of the said order but the same was rejected on 12.12.1983. After about six years, the appellant file a writ petition in this Court on 23.7.1989 alleging violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order of resumption. The petition was contested on the ground of delay and laches. It was stated that repeated requests were made to the appellant to take possession and to start construction but the appellant failed to take steps for construction. The appellant also failed to pay the price of the plot. In view of non compliance of terms and conditions of allotment, the plot was resumed on 25.2.1983. The representation of the appellant was rejected but still he kept quiet for a long period till filing of the writ petition. Accordingly, the plot was allotted to respondent No.2 on 4.4.1989 and in such circumstances, interference by this Court was not called for. Learned Single Judge upheld the impugned resumption on the ground of delay and laches as well as third party right which accrued in the meanwhile before filing of the writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was violation of principles of natural justice and impugned order was a nullity. Delay and laches could not be a ground to non-suit the appellant. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Sulochana Devi v. D.M.Sujatha and others, (2005) 9 SCC 335. It was also submitted that the impugned order was hit by the doctrine of ‘proportionality’ as drastic power of resumption could be used only as a last resort in a rare case. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Teri Oat Estates (P) Limited v. UT Chandigarh and others, (2004) 2 SCC 130 2 LPA No.1018 of 2011 5. We are unable to accept the submissions. In the present case, the appellant received the impugned order in the year 1983. He had also made a representation which was rejected. The plot was thereafter allotted to a third party. The appellant kept quiet for six years. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the petition suffered from laches. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction has to be invoked at the earliest and where there is no valid explanation for long delay in approaching the Court, the writ court may not entertain the petition. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Tilokchand Motichand and others v. H. B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and another (1969) 1 SCC 110. 6. As regards judgment in R.Sulochana Devi, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner defaulted in payment as well as in condition for construction. Similarly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, judgment in M/s Teri Oat Estates (P) Limited does not help him since present case is a case of acknowledged default and long silence of the appellant. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 18, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3 LPA No.1018 of 2011 4