CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3650 Of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3650 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Ajay Kumar Bhandari ....Petitioner. Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate for HUDA. ****** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P11) i.e. order of resumption passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. A commercial site i.e. SCF No.118, in Sector 19-1, Faridabad, was allotted to the petitioner in an open auction held on 10.4.1996. 10% of the total price was paid at the time of auction and remaining 15% was paid within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Thus, the petitioner deposited Rs. 6,25,000/- towards 25% of the total price of the plot but balance amount was not paid, including interest and penalty which fell due by 6th March, 2002. Repeated notices were sent to the petitioner but he did not clear the arrears to the tune of Rs.48,62,380/-. When CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3650 Of 2007 [2] petitioner did not submit his reply satisfactorily for default in making payment of the said amount, then vide order dated 15.3.2002, the said plot was resumed by Estate Officer, HUDA, in exercise of powers vested under Section 17(4) of the HUDA, Act. The petitioner has challenged the order of resumption on various grounds. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that possession of the plot was given by the junior engineer on 30.9.1996 and a building plan for approval with the respondent was also submitted by the petitioner on 18.6.1997. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the construction was to be completed within 2 years from the date of offer of possession, after getting the plan approved from the Estate Officer. It has also been argued by Mr. Manchanda that petitioner could not receive notice due to change of address and this fact was also in the knowledge of the respondent- authorities. He argued that after depositing 25% of the amount, the building plan submitted by the petitioner was not approved and, therefore, construction over the plot in question could not be started and the delay was on the part of the respondents. The resumption order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and giving any sufficient reason. Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed, which is on record. Mr. Longia, learned counsel for HUDA, has argued that building plans for sanction were duly submitted on behalf of the petitioner by his Architect but due to orders of prohibition of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for raising construction, the plans submitted by the petitioner were returned to the Architect and after that the same CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3650 Of 2007 [3] was never presented again for sanction after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Longia has further argued that an alternative remedy of appeal before the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad (exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, HUDA), against the order of resumption was also available to the petitioner and the same has not been availed before filing the present petition. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and have perused the writ records. Without going into the merits of the case and in view of the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the order of resumption before the Administrator, HUDA (exercising the powers of Chief Administrator), therefore, he is relegated to avail an alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the HUDA, Act. Though there may be inordinate delay in submitting such an appeal, but looking to the background of the case, we expect the Administrator concerned to take a considerate view. With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE November 4,2008. raghav