C.W.P NO. 4120 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 4120 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 17.03.2009 Uday Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 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 ? Present : Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2001, resumption order dated 15.07.2002 as well as the orders dated 12.09.2003 and 21.10.2008 passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, respectively, whereby his appeal and revision preferred against the order of resumption, have been dismissed. The petitioner was allotted a residential plot bearing No. 164, Sector – 46, Gurgaon on 29.05.1996 on a tentative C.W.P NO. 4120 OF 2009 -2- price of Rs.1,74,960/-. After payment of 25% of the tentative price, the balance 75% amount of Rs.1.31,220/- was required to be paid in six annual installments along with interest @ 15% per annum. Except two installments of Rs.26,244/- and Rs.25,000/- paid on 02.07.1996 and 23.03.1997 respectively, it is the conceded position that the petitioner made no payment as per the agreed terms and conditions of the allotment. Notices under Sections 17 (1) and 17(2) of the HUDA Act were received by the petitioner on 09.06.2000 and 27.03.2001. He, however, did not respond to these notices. Third notice dated 15.07.2001 was also issued though not acknowledged by the petitioner, followed by a notice dated 23.01.2002 under Section 17 (4) of the Act. Since no amount was deposited by the petitioner despite these notices, the Estate Officer, HUDA vide his memo dated 15.07.2002 (Annexure P-4), resumed the plot. The petitioner preferred an appeal with the sole plea that he did not receive the notices due to change of his address. The Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities have repelled the said plea after observing that no intimation regarding change of address was given by the petitioner to the Estate Office and that enough opportunities were granted to the petitioner before passing the resumption order after a period of six years of the allotment. C.W.P NO. 4120 OF 2009 -3- In these circumstances, the petitioner's claim that he is ready and willing to pay the entire dues, does suggest that he kept the plot for speculative purposes and not to meet out any bona fide need. No case to interfere with the impugned order is, therefore, made out. Dismissed. MARCH 17, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE