1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.721/2006 Smt. Anadita VS. State of Raj & Ors. Date : 22.01.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHATRA RAM JAT Mr. Sudheer Sharma for the appellant. ________ Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The brief facts as noticed by the learned Single Judge are that the appellant had made highest bid for a plot of 1350 sq. metrs. of land at Boranada, Industrial Area for the purpose of setting up of weigh bridge at the rate of Rs.178/- per sq. mtr. Though the petitioner has deposited Rs.61,000/- at the time of bid, but, the remaining balance was not deposited in time even after receipt of notice dated 20th September, 1998. He had applied for extension of time vide application dated 15.11.1988 and 30 days extension was 2 granted to deposit the balance amount but the said amount was not deposited, therefore, vide order dated 6.2.1989 the allotment was cancelled. Having come to know about the cancellation of allotment, the petitioner moved an application expressing his desire to deposit the amount due against the aforesaid allotment and asked for details of the amount to be deposited by him. The corporation informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.2,02,022/- is to be deposited by him which included interest for not depositing the amount in time and Rs.42/- per month as a ground rent. The amount was required to be deposited within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. The appellant did not responded to this demand. But after about few months the petitioner submitted a cheque of Rs.1 lac and an application for extending the period for depositing the balance amount. After the encashement of cheque, the petitioner sent another cheque of Rs.79,300/- in stead of balance amount of Rs.2,02,022/- which was not accepted by the respondent-corporation and it returned not only the cheque of Rs.79,300/- but also returned the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was earlier encashed by it by not 3 withdrawing the cancellation order. Thereafter, when the petitioner again approached the respondent-corporation by serving a demand of justice notice, the Corporation informed the petitioner by the Senior Regional Manager, RIICO that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner has already been cancelled, therefore, no further action is required. It is almost 2 and half years thereafter that the present writ petition was filed. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that vide Annex.R/8 the petitioner was given an offer through Settlement committee that if she pays within 30 days Rs.2,72,435/- which included development charges, interest, service charges, rent etc. in all Rs.2,72,435/- cancellation order shall be recalled. However, she was not able to avail that opportunity. It clearly shows that the petitioner was not willing to comply with the terms of allotment at any time. Consequently, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding that no interference is called for. We are in agreement with learned Single Judge, additionally on the ground that the writ petition suffers from 4 unexplained latches. The appeal is dismissed in limine. [CHATRA RAM JAT], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/