CWP No.12598 of 2011 (O&M) Dharam Chand VERSUS State of Haryana and others Present :Mr.G.I.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 29.01.1996, 25.09.2008 and 30.11.2010, passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat, the Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, respectively, whereby the plot allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991 has been resumed and the respondents have refused to re-allot the plot to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the plot was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991, he could not pay the balance consideration, except 25%, as he met with an accident. It is further submitted that in CWP No.15469 of 2006, filed by the petitioner, the respondents were directed to allot the plot to the petitioner at market rate. Despite this order, the petitioner's claim for re-allotment of this plot at market rate has been rejected without any clear or cogent reasons. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders as also the order passed in CWP No. 15469 of 2006. The plot in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991. Apart from CWP No.12598 of 2011 (O&M) -2- depositing the initial 25%, the petitioner chose not to pay instalments or any amount towards remaining instalments. The respondents, therefore, were justified in resuming the plot and cancelling the allotment. As regards the plea that the petitioner's offer for re- allotment as market value has been arbitrarily rejected, the argument is not tenable whether in fact or in law. The respondents were only directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for re-allotment at market rate. The order dated 30.01.2006, passed in CWP No.15459 of 2006, does not direct the allotment of a plot. The impugned orders set out the petitioner's submissions and thereafter deal with them in a clear and cogent manner. In the absence of any illegality or an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction in the impugned orders, the writ petition is dismissed. 20.07.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE