C.W.P. No.6661 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6661 of 1989 Date of Decision.25.03.2010 Dwarka Nath Marwah, Qtr. No.2, ASI Type, PS Sabzi Mandi, Delhi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges an order of eviction passed in purported exercise of power under the HUDA Act, after an order of resumption was made for alleged conversion of residential property for non-residential use, contrary to the terms of use set out in the order of allotment. The grievance of the petitioner is that against the order of resumption of the residential plot, there had been an appeal filed to the Appellate Authority, which is provided in statute but even before the disposal of the appeal action for eviction was taken C.W.P. No.6661 of 1989 -2- on the basis of the original order of resumption. Although, the matter had been admitted by this Court as early as on 19.05.1989, so far no objection has been filed by the respondent. In my view, it will serve no purpose in directing the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh and pass orders and having regard to the fact that several years have elapsed from the original order of resumption, I deem it appropriate to treat the order of resumption passed by the authority as having come to a conclusion before the Authorities and the order of resumption would require to be examined before this Court. 2. It has been held in several decisions that the resumption shall be taken as a mode of last resort if the allottee has committed a misuse or acts in contravention with the terms and conditions despite notices. The alleged change in user is a residential property for use for selling sarees. The authority ought to have given an opportunity to abate such use if it was in contravention with the terms of allotment and not inflict the allottee with serious consequence of resumption of allotment and for ejectment. The interest of justice will be appropriately met if the petitioner is restrained from using the property for any purpose other than the residential purpose and the order of resumption which is already passed and the consequential orders of eviction are quashed. The C.W.P. No.6661 of 1989 -3- respondents shall call upon the petitioner to give an undertaking that the property will be put only to residential use and any modification in change of user namely commercial use shall not be done by the petitioner. Such an undertaking will be given on a notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner stipulating the period before when such undertaking was to be given. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 19.05.1989 has also granted the stay of resumption orders and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the Stay is still in operation. In the circumstances, the impugned order of resumption and the orders of eviction are quashed and the petitioner shall be allowed to retain the possession of property subject to the requirement of undertaking in the manner indicated above. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 25, 2010 Pankaj*