- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order 02.02.2001 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Estate Officer resuming booth No.179, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Faridabad, allotted to the petitioners and the order in appeal dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P-7), whereby the appeal against the order of resumption was dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioners were allotted the aforesaid booth vide letter of allotment dated 10.04.1996. The petitioners deposited 25% of the amount within the time prescribed, but failed to deposit remaining 75% amount, which could be deposited either in lump sum without interest within 60 days or in 10 half yearly installments. On account of failure of the petitioners to deposit the said amount, the booth was resumed after the notices under Sections 17 (1), 17 (2) 17 (3) and 17 (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 were served upon the petitioners. It was found that the petitioners failed to clear the arrears of Rs. 7,29,080/- nor submitted any reply. It is, thereafter, an appeal was filed by the allottee through a General Power of Attorney Smt. Sunita Kalra on 30.11.2009. It was the said appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority for the reason that it is barred by limitation and there is no explanation as to why such a delay has been caused. It was found that even after 5 years of the allotment of booth, no attempt was made to make the due payments.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and found no merit in the present writ petition. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have raised construction and enjoyed the possession of commercial site, but did not pay the balance sale consideration for the last 15 years. The order of resumption was passed in the year 2001, but the same was challenged in the year 2009 after an attorney was appointed. A perusal of the General Power of Attorney, appended with the writ petition, shows that it was executed on 02.04.1998. The Power of Attorney was executed after resumption of plot. Such attorney was executed knowing fully well that the booth stands resumed. Thus, we find that the conduct of the petitioners in not making the payment for a period of 5 years before the order of resumption was passed and 9 years thereafter, shows that the petitioners have no intention to make the payment.
(3.) Consequently, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of resumption, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.;