Civil Writ Petition No.19129 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19129 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.03.2011 Sh. Shyam Sunder .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was allotted one residential plot measuring 300 sq.yards at Sonepat, on 5.8.1991. The tentative cost of plot was `2,30,100/- and 25% of this amount was deposited as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter. The allotment letter was, accordingly, issued in favour of the petitioner. The remaining amount was also required to be paid in terms of the allotment letter. The original allottee of this plot was Sham Sunder, who statedly had appointed Surninder Kumar as his GPA. The GPA has now filed this petition on behalf of original Civil Writ Petition No.19129 of 2010 -2- allottee. It is stated that the allottee could not deposit the remaining instalment after deposit of 25% of the amount. No notice was received by the allottee or the GPA. Suddenly on 4.7.2006, GPA wrote one letter to respondent No.4 for intimating the balance dues. It is then brought to his notice that the plot was resumed on 31.7.1995. Aggrieved against the same, GPA had preferred an appeal before the Administrator HUDA. The said appeal was allowed on 8.5.2007 and the petitioner was required to clear all the dues with interest as per the HUDA policy within three months. The GPA of the allottee served a legal notice for intimating the balance. In the meantime, respondent No.3 also preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid order. The revision was allowed on 14.6.2010 and the order dated 8.5.2007 passed in favour of the petitioner, has been set aside. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition to impugn the adverse order standing against him. As per the petitioner, this plot has not been re-alloted and is still standing in the name of the petitioner. His grievance is that the resumption should be a last resort and accordingly, the same should be set aside. During the course of hearing, the respondents were required to have instructions if they are prepared to restore the resumption order on payment of charges including interest to the petitioner. This proposal has not been accepted by the respondents. At this stage, option was given to the counsel for the petitioner to have instructions, in case, the petitioner is prepared to Civil Writ Petition No.19129 of 2010 -3- pay the price of the plot as per the prevalent market rate. The counsel is not in a position to either accept or decline this offer. If the petitioner is ready to pay the present market price, he may move an application in this regard before the respondents within two weeks from today. If he does so, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and if they are willing or ready to restore the allotment of this plot by recalling the resumption order, they may do so. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. March 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE