CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4381 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 22,2011 M/s Evergreen Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi .....Petitioner VERSUS The Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On account of a delay on his part to close the deal, the petitioner apparently seems to be loosing his right to ask for allotment made in his favour. On 3.3.1990, the petitioner-Company was successful in purchasing a plot bearing No.4317-P in Sector 23/23-A, Gurgaon in auction. The petitioner deposited 10% of the amount and thereafter has mostly been engaged in correspondence, rather than clearing the payment of the remaining outstanding amount. As per the petitioner, he had written many letters, expressing his grievance about demarcation and no development, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4381 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: but he did not receive any response. Except for depositing 15% of the auction amount on 23.4.1990, the petitioner did nothing more. On account of failure to deposit further instalments, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17-A of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act as to why penalty be not imposed on him. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice by filing civil suit. Thereafter, he informed respondent-HUDA that matter was subjudice. What happened between December 1990 to May 1994 is not forthcoming. Nothing is further mentioned about the fate of the suit. In May 1994 respondent-HUDA had offered possession of the plot to the petitioner. The petitioner was also informed that there was increase in area of the plot, for which he will have to pay some more amount. The petitioner again is silent as to what all transpired between 1994 to September 2001. Another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in September 2001 for paying `16.57 lacs with penalty. The petitioner instead wrote to the respondents for claiming correct amount and also by charging simple interest @ 10%. Yet another notice followed, showing outstanding amount to be `18.23 lacs. As per the petitioner, he submitted reply on 23.4.2002 and thereafter no correspondence took place between him and HUDA. On 9.6.2006, the petitioner claims to have sent a pay order for a sum of `7.98 lacs towards principle and interest. In response, the petitioner was informed through letter dated 6.7.2006 that his plot stood resumed and cancelled through a memo No.388 dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4381 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: 20.2.2003. The pay order sent by the petitioner was also returned/refunded. The petitioner addressed a legal notice and then filed a writ petition in July 2008 before this Court for recalling resumption order passed in February 2003. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the resumption order. The appeal has been dismissed on 27.9.2010 and the petitioner has now filed the present petition. Except for stating that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount with interest, counsel has no explanation to offer for such inordinate delay in making the payment. Concededly, the petitioner was intimated the amount due, as per his own showing in September 2001 but still he did not take any action to make the payment. Much after the resumption of the plot, the petitioner had deposited some amount and that too without any demand and the same was rightly returned to him. The petitioner has not disclosed as to what all he did between December 1990 to May 1994 and then between July 1994 to September 2001. It appears that the petitioner is withholding some information with an aim to hide true facts. Somuch so, he has not made mention to the resumption order in the list of dates and events, though he has filed the present writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority, declining to revoke the resumption order. The fact that the plot had been resumed in the year 2003, apparently is well within the knowledge of the petitioner and was disclosed to him, when he filed the earlier writ petition before this Court. I find no justification on the part of the petitioner in not discharging his liability for so long. Obviously, the prices of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4381 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: property has increased many fold and the petitioner apparently is making a desperate bid to cling to this plot at a rate which would be negligible as per prevailing rates. This can not be fairly allowed. The petitioner, thus, has not made out any case, calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 22,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE