CWP NO. 8439 OF 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8439 of 2008. Date of Decision: 6th January, 2009. Col. Kulwinder Singh & Anr. ....Petitioners through Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate with Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This writ petition seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.11.2001 [Annexure P-2] and dated 6.5.2008 [Annexure P-7] whereby allotment of SCO No. 109, Sector 25, Panchkula, has been cancelled and the site resumed. [2]. The facts giving rise to this case are that SCO No. 109, Sector 25, Panchkula was originally allotted to one Shiv Chand in an open auction. The said Shiv Chand sold the site to the petitioners, in whose favour it was re-allotted by the HUDA vide its order dated 27.1.2000 [Annexure P-1]. As per the terms and conditions of the re- allotment, the petitioners were liable to pay the balance sale consideration by way of following installments:- CWP NO. 8439 OF 2008. ::-2-:: Sr. No. Due Date Amount of Installment 1. 4.1.2000 3,17,250.00 2. 4.7.2000 3,02,379.00 3. 4.1.2001 2,87,508.00 4. 4.7.2001 2,72,637.00 5. 4.1.2002 2,57,765.00 6. 4.7.2002 2,42,894.00 7. 4.1.2003 2,28,023.00 8. 4.7.2003 2,13,152.00 [3]. The petitioners defaulted in payment of the installments which were due on 4.1.2001 and 4.7.2001, as a result of which the site was resumed by the Estate Officer, HUDA vide his order dated 22.11.2001 [Annexure P-2]. [4]. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 17[5] of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 against the resumption of the site. The Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula-cum- Appellate Authority took more than five years to decide the said appeal vide order dated 14.2.2006 [Annexure P-4] whereby the petitioners' appeal was accepted, inter-alia, on the ground that the site was resumed by the Estate Officer even when the total Payment Schedule had not been exhausted and that it was a case of irregularity in payment and not of a default of such a nature which could warrant harsh action like resumption of the site. The petitioners were accordingly directed to deposit the outstanding dues as per the HUDA policy along with penalty of Rs.2 lacs. [5]. The afore-stated order was impugned in a revision petition by the Estate Officer, Panchkula which has been accepted by the State Government vide the impugned order dated 6.5.2008 [Annexure P-5]. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of CWP NO. 8439 OF 2008. ::-3-:: Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department-cum-Revisional Authority has, while allowing the appeal, observed that the Appellate Authority was heavily influenced by the fact that the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lacs during the pendency of the appeal and that subsequent events ought not to have been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal and that the Administrator was required to consider the facts as on the date of passing of the resumption order. [6]. Aggrieved at the order of the Revisional Authority that the petitioners have approached this Court. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time and perused the record. [8]. There is no quarrel with the fact that the site was allotted for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,15,000/-. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.8,04,000/- was deposited prior to the resumption order whereas a sum of Rs.15 lacs was deposited by them during the pendency of the appeal. Even thereafter a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- had been deposited on 20.2.2006 followed by another payment of Rs.2,75,000/- on 2.3.2007. In this manner, the petitioners are stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.35,71,000/- as against the total sale consideration of Rs.21,15,000/-. [9]. The real question which arises for consideration is as to whether the default in payment of two installments by the petitioners was sufficient to resume the site without giving them an additional opportunity to clear the dues along with interest/penal interest. Before adverting to the said issue, it would be apposite to refer to the CWP NO. 8439 OF 2008. ::-4-:: following terms and conditions of the allotment letter:- “1. The installments shall include 15% interest on balance from the date of offer of possession, in case of default, additional interest as per prevalent policy shall be payable. 2. Each installment shall be remitted to the Estate Officer, and every such remittance shall be accompanied by a letter showing the full particulars of the site, i.e., the number of plot and sector number to which the payment pertains. In the absence of these particulars the amount remitted shall not be deemed to have been received. 3. xx xx 4. In case any payment is not made by the due date, then additional interest shall be added as per prevalent policy for the permitted period. Thereafter, resumption proceeding shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977. xx xx 19. 18% per annum interest of installment and enhancement will be charged if these are not received in time”. [10]. From a combined reading of these terms and conditions, it is apparent that the allottees are liable to pay allotment price in installments along with interest @ 15% per annum and “in case any payment is not made by the due date, then additional interest shall be added as per prevalent policy for the permitted period”. It is thereafter only that the resumption proceedings could be initiated. [11]. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the default in payment of the installments committed by the petitioners was with regard to the installments which fell due on 4.1.2001 and 4.7.2001. In CWP NO. 8439 OF 2008. ::-5-:: my considered view, the Estate Officer acted in haste in resuming the site without first resorting to Clause [4] of the allotment letter, in terms whereof, the petitioners could be asked to pay penal interest as provided in clause [19] of the allotment letter. In other words, the petitioners could be asked to pay both the installments along with interest @18% per annum. Similar procedure could be followed in respect of the subsequent installments also if there was any default. The resumption of site could be the last resort. Needless to say that the respondent authorities are entitled to timely payment of the installments and in case of any delay, they are entitled to be suitably compensated by penal interest. That was the procedure that ought to have been followed, unless the Estate Officer was of the definite opinion that the petitioners are willful and habitual defaulters who have no intention to make the payments. [12]. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.5.2008 [Annexure P-7] is set aside and that of the Appellate Authority dated 14.2.2006 [Annexure P-4] is restored, however, subject to the further condition that the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the balance sale consideration w.e.f. The first date of default i.e., 4.1.2001 besides penalty of Rs.2 lacs as imposed by the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. The balance amount, if any, recoverable from the petitioners shall be communicated to them within one month and they shall make the payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said communication, failing which the resumption order shall attain finality. Disposed of. January 06, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE