IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 22189 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 05, 2011 Santosh Gupta. …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr.M.S. Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Randeep Singh Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner through Sub Power of Attorney Kulwinder Kaur @ Lakhbir Kaur for quashing of order dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali whereby allotment of plot has been cancelled, order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, Mohali and order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing & Urban Development-cum-Revisional Authority, whereby appeal and revision have been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that House No. 1325/10, MIG in Phase XI, Mohali was originally allotted to Smt. Santosh Gupta wife of Sh. R.K. Gupta vide allotment letter dated 16.03.1989 (Annexure P/1). Petitioner - Santosh Gupta CWP No.22189 of 2011 appointed Smt. Daljeet Kaur wife of S. Gurcharan Singh Kang as her General Power of Attorney on 17.12.1990 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, Daljeet Kaur, General Power of Attorney, appointed Kulvinder Kaur as Sub-General Power of Attorney on 21.04.1995 (Annexure P/3). As per the terms of the allotment letter, allottee was required to pay installments on 10th day of every month without any notice. The petitioner committed a default in payment of 83 installments amounting to Rs.65,051/-. Almost for 7 years, no installments were paid, as a result of which, the Estate Officer cancelled the allotment of the house vide order dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P/4). An appeal preferred against the order of the Estate Officer by the petitioner to the Additional Chief Administrator, had also been dismissed as time barred and the order of the Estate Officer had been upheld. The revision petition filed by the petitioner had also been dismissed on the ground of failure to deposit 83 installments. The cancellation is for the reason that there is considerable delay in not depositing the balance amount. Even during the period, the order remained under challenge before the authorities, the petitioner did not deposit the amount along with interest. The Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, directed the Estate Officer to refund the amount and initiate ejectment proceedings. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram Piari vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1993(2) RRR 200, and has 2 CWP No.22189 of 2011 contended that the delay in payment of installments should be condoned and resumption of the plot should be set aside as resumption order should be passed as a last resort. Resumption is an extreme step which should not be attracted merely on account of delay. In that case, there was slight delay in payment of the enhanced price and afterward the delayed payment was accepted by the authorities. In the present case, no such circumstances exist. The petitioner did not offer at any stage either before the Additional Chief Administrator or the Additional Secretary to deposit the balance amount of installments. So, that judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This is a case where there was consistent default in making the payment of installments. Thus, we are of the view that orders of the Estate Officer, Additional Chief Secretary and Additional Secretary do not call for any interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 05, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkd JUDGE 3