IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2907 of 2009 Date of decision: March 09, 2009. Vikas Singla & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-6) whereby their appeal against the resumption order passed by the Market Committee, Kunjpura, has been dismissed. The petitioners purchased plots No.54 and 55 in Grain Market, Kunjpura in an auction held on 19.1.1999. While petitioner No.1 was the highest bidder for plot No.55 and offered Rs.4,20,000/-, petitioner no.2 was the highest bidder for plot No.54 who had offered the price of Rs.4,15,000/-. The petitioners deposited 25% of the bid amount at the spot. The balance 75% was to be paid in six half yearly installments along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of issue of allotment letter or it could be deposited within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter without any interest. It is the conceded position that no installment, whatsoever, was paid by the petitioners towards the 75% balance amount. Not one, but various notices were issued by the Market Committee calling upon the petitioners to deposit the balance amount as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. The petitioners having failed to do so and, thus, having violated condition No.4 of the allotment letter read with rule 4(6) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (sale of Immovable Properties) Rules, 2000, the Market Committee invoked condition No.19 of the allotment letter and resumed the plot on 9.7.2003. The resumption orders were duly sent and served upon the petitioners vide registered letter dated 6.9.2003. The petitioners never challenged the resumption orders dated 9.7.2003 within the limitation period or even thereafter. The resumed plots bearing No.54 and 55 were thereafter decided to be re-auctioned on 6.1.2009. It was at that stage that the petitioners approached this Court in a writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to them to approach the Chief Administrator of the Board to get their appeal decided. The Chief Administrator vide his impugned order dated 10.2.2009 has turned down the petitioners' representation-cum-appeal. Meanwhile, both the plot sites have been re-auctioned. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners informs that in the fresh auction, each plot has fetched more than Rs.22 lacs as the price. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The petitioners acted in total disregard to the agreed terms and conditions of allotment and made no payment towards the six half yearly installments. Had there been reasonable explanation or cause for not depositing the same, they ought to have pleaded the same before the Market Committee in response to the repeated notices issued to them for deposit of the balance sale price. Not only this, the petitioners also accepted the resumption order dated 6.9.2003 and never challenged the same within a reasonable period. It is only when the plots were sought to be re-auctioned after a sufficient long period of time that the petitioners woke up and started agitating their claims being the highest bidders in the auction held in the year 1999. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. March 9, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge