IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5231 of 2007. Date of Decision: 29th April, 2009. Vidya Devi ....Petitioner through Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S.Chahar, Advocate. Versus HUDA & Another ...Respondents through Mr. J.P.Bhatt, 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) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.7.1996 [Annexure P-7] whereby due to non-payment of enhanced amount of Rs.59,037/- as demanded by the HUDA authorities, Plot No. 290-P, Sector 15-A, Hisar, allotted to her, has been resumed. While issuing notice of motion, this Court vide order dated 5.4.2007 directed that on deposit of the remaining outstanding amount, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed. Thereafter, on 3.2.2009 learned counsel for the parties were heard and the following order was passed:- “The petitioner was allotted Plot No. 290-P, Sector 15, Hisar. The plot was resumed due to non-payment of enhancement in the allotment price. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the resumption order which was conditionally allowed by the appellate authority with a direction to the petitioner to deposit all the outstanding amounts within 30 days. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order dated 19.7.1996 by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Hissar asking her to deposit a sum of Rs.59037/- in terms of the order of the appellate authority. The petitioner appears to have challenged the aforesaid order in a civil suit which she lost upto this Court on the ground that the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The petitioner's Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on January 12, 2007 in a way leaving other remedies open to the petitioner. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed in which a Division Bench of this Court stayed dispossession of the petitioner subject to her depositing the remaining outstanding amount. While the petitioner claims that she has deposited the entire outstanding amount. Learned counsel for the respondents does not admit the same. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is liable to pay the entire dues along with penal interest @ 18% as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Before proceeding further in the matter, let the respondents calculate the balance amount of arrears as one date which the petitioner might be liable to pay”. In deference thereto, learned counsel for the respondents has filed an affidavit of Pankaj Chaudhary, Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar along with a Statement of Account of Plot No. 290-P, Sector 15A, Hisar and as per the same the petitioner is still liable to pay Rs.2,15,491/-. Learned counsel for the parties have been again heard on merits. In my considered view, there is no legal infirmity in the demand raised by the respondents as a consequence to the enhanced compensation paid to the land owners. However, it would be fair and reasonable to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to clear all the dues and get the allotment regularized. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner deposits the balance amount as calculated by the respondents, i.e., Rs.2,15,491/- before 31.7.2009, the resumption order shall be deemed to have been set aside and the allotment of the plot shall stand restored in her favour. In the event of the petitioner's failure to do so, the resumption order shall be deemed to have been upheld. However, after the deposit of the due amount, as directed above, nothing shall preclude the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities to point out any mistake in the calculation of the due amount and if such a representation is made, the same shall be objectively considered by the authorities. Dasti. April 29, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE