LPA No. 436 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 436 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus M/s. Sonu Printing Press Private Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2009. There is a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. Learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of resumption dated 12.1.2005 subject to the condition that allotment will be at the enhanced rate of Rs.3700/- per square meter, as proposed by the appellate authority, as against the original allotment being @ Rs.2200/- per square meter. 3. Respondent No. 1 was allotted a plot on 24.5.2004 LPA No. 436 of 2009 (O&M) 2 measuring 1012.50 sq. meters at the rate of Rs.2200/- per square meter. The petitioner deposited 10% of the amount and was required to deposit further 15% within 30 days i.e. on or before 24.6.2004. On account of the non-deposit, the impugned order dated 12.1.2005 was passed. The petitioner contested the order of resumption on the ground that it was not heard before passing of the order and that it had already prepared a bank draft on 18.6.2004, within the stipulated period but the same could not be deposited because of confusion regarding the number of plot which had arisen because of change of number and the amount was finally deposited on 5.8.2004. 4. The appellate authority proposed that the resumption order would be set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.3700/- per sq. meter. Since the petitioner was not agreeable, writ petition was filed. 5. Contention raised in the petition was that the petitioner was not at fault and could not be saddled with liability to pay higher rate. However, the petitioner finally agreed before the learned Single Judge to accept the rate of Rs.3700/- per sq. meter on which the writ petition was allowed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of learned Single Judge is erroneous as the order of LPA No. 436 of 2009 (O&M) 3 resumption could not be interfered with, without finding any fault therein, merely on the ground that petitioner was prepared to pay the enhanced rate. Even if the enhanced rate was to be ordered the same should have been Rs.9000/- per square meter, which is the current market rate. 8. We do not find any substance in the contention. Though, the learned Single Judge has not expressly given the reasons for interfering with the order of resumption, it is patent that the order of resumption has not been found to be sustainable. It is well settled that merely because the order of resumption is stipulated for non-compliance, the drastic action of resumption is permissible only if the conduct of an allottee justifies such an action. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. V. U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2004) 2 SCC 130. 9. In the present case, there is an averment in the writ petition that the petitioner got a bank draft prepared on 18.6.2004 itself which has not been disputed in the written statement. It is also not disputed that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order of resumption. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did deposit the amount, after some delay. It has also not been disputed that there was a change in the number of plot. These circumstances render the order of LPA No. 436 of 2009 (O&M) 4 resumption vulnerable. However, while interfering in the order of resumption, the Court may impose appropriate conditions. Having regard to the circumstances, the order of learned Single Judge setting aside the order of resumption by accepting the offer of higher rate proposed by the appellate authority, though not accepted by the petitioner earlier, cannot be held to be illegal. 10. Dismissed. 11. The allottee will be bound by the terms of allotment and if the allotment is subject to the interest, enhanced payment by the allottee will carry interest as per usual conditions of allotment. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 25.5.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE