Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 4507 of 2011. -C.M. No. 4508 of 2011 - For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 6 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. -L.P.A. No. 1656 of 2011 -
(2.) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing CWP No. 4381 of 2011 and upholding the order of resumption dated 20.2.2003 in relation to plot bearing No. 4317 -P, Sector 23, 23 -A, Gurgaon and the further order dated 27.9.2010(P -1) passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (in exercise of the powers of the Chief Administrator), It is significant that against the resumption order dated 20.3.2003 for non -payment of installments beyond 25 %, an appeal was filed belatedly on 19.8.2009, which was dismissed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon on 27.9.2010, the second order impugned in the petition. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant before us is a Private Limited Company (registered under the Companies Act, 1956), and was an auction purchaser of plot bearing No. 4317 -P, Sector 23, 23 -A, Gurgaon on having made a successful bid on 3.3.1990. On 23.3.1990, the appellant was informed of the terms and conditions and of the payment schedule required to be adhered to. The appellant had deposited 10% of the amount of the auction price of Rs. 4,84,000/ - at the fall of the hammer and then deposited 15% of the price on 23.4.1990. Thereafter, the appellant sat back and did not pay any further amount and engaged himself in a correspondence with HUDA with a view to wriggle out of the situation and deferred payment of its dues on the lame excuse of rendition of accounts knowing full well its liability and the consequences of nonpayment of balance amount. A spate of notices was issued to the appellant company by respondent HUDA calling upon it to pay the balance amount. On its failure to pay the balance amount with interest, penalty etc., an order of resumption was passed in 2003. In the writ petition and in this appeal, the appellant company has disclosed that there was litigation between the parties pending before the Civil Court at Gurgaon. No further details of the Civil Suit were disclosed. After passing of the resumption order, no appeal was filed till 2009. This appeal has been dismissed on 27.9.2010.
(3.) THE appellant then filed CWP No. 11752 of 2008 challenging the resumption order of 2003. In those proceedings, an objection was taken by HUDA that an appeal lies against the resumption order and Ld counsel for the respondent -HUDA made a statement then that in case an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order of this Court i.e., 7.8.2009, the appeal would be entertained and decided on merits. It is in these circumstances that the statutory appeal was filed which came to be decided by the second impugned order of 2010.;