SURYA KANT, J. - (1.) THE petitioners seek quashing of order dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by HUDA, resuming the site SCF No. 6, Sector- 15, Panchkula, purchased by them in an open auction. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dismissing their appeal against the aforesaid resumption order.
(2.) THE petitioners being the highest bidders were allotted the subject site by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula vide allotment letter No. 4524 dated 20.4.1989 (Annexure P-1) on the stipulated terms and conditions, some of which being relevant are reproduced below: "21. All payment shall be made by means of the demand draft payable to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula draw on any scheduled bank situated at Panchkula. 22. No separate notice will be sent for payment of instalments. However, (illegible)ation regarding the instalment the amount, the due date etc. may be sent (illegible) of courtesy. Half yearly instalments of Rs. as under will fall due on 20th April to 20th October every year, as under:- JUDGEMENT_124_RCR(CIVIL)1_2013.htm (emphasis applied) Since the petitioners failed to deposit the due instalments, HUDA issued show cause notices under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and thereafter resumed the site. The aggrieved petitioners preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 6.9.2000. Still aggrieved, they preferred revision petition before the State Government, which was allowed conditionally vide order dated 3.12.2001 (Annexure P-8), the operative part whereof reads as under: " I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted fact that the allottees have failed to deposit the price of the site as per the given schedule. However they have occupied the building on the site without prior permission. The parties have not paid the principal amount as yet. Hence their arguments about quantum of interest on delayed payment is irrelevant at this stage. However keeping in mind the assurance of prompt payment of all the dues, I give them a chance with the condition that outstanding dues along with interest as per policy of HUDA are to be deposited by the petitioners within three months from the date so conveyed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, within the given time, resumption order passed by the administrator on 06.09.2000 would prevail without any further (illegible) to the petitioner." (emphasis by us)
(3.) IN compliance to the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the Estate Officer, Panchkula, vide notice dated 1.1.2002 (Annexure P-9) raised a demand of Rs. 28,24,700/- to b deposited by the petitioners within a period of three months. The petitioners however, did not pay the aforesaid amount and disputed the claim raised by the Estate Officer. Their counsel sent reply dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure P-10) claiming that about Rs. 16 lacs had already been deposited by the petitioners which was not accounted for and the demand was based upon wrong calculation. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, vide second memo dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure P-11) informed the petitioners that their account was again checked and after adjusting the amount deposited in November, 2000 and on 3rd January, 2001, a sum of Rs. 20,65,485/- was due towards them.;