- (1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners Devinder Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Gupta have challenged the order of resumption of Industrial Plot No. 265, Industrial Area Phase I, Panchkula and forfeiture of Rs. 3400.00 out of the total amount of Rs. 16033.92 passed by the Estate Officer HUDA Panchkula, respondent No. l on 17/08/1980 (Annexure P 11) and order of 29/06/1982 (Annexure P14) passed by the Administrator HUDA, Panchkula.
(2.) Plot No. 116 measuring 1/4 acre in Industrial Area Phase I, in the Urban Estate at Panchhkula was allotted to the petitioners at tentative sale price of Rs. 18150.00 vide letter No. 13482 dated 5-8-1975. Twenty per cent of the sale price was paid in advance whereas the balance 80 per cent was payable in 10 equated annual instalments with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum, each instalment inclusive of interest being of Rs. 2067.32 and the last instalment was payable in 1984. The petitioners had been paying the instalments regularly. The total amount of Rs. 16033.92 towards the sale price was deposited by the allottees prior to the filing of the present writ petition.
(3.) Vide letter of 30/05/1976 (Annexure P-2) of the first respondent the petitioners were informed that prior to the allotment of 1/4 acre plot No. 116 to them, it had already been allotted to M/s Dharam Vir Laxman Dass on 5/08/1974, and the and discrepancy came to the notice of the authorities on scrutinising the record of the office. The petitioners were, therefore allotted 1/4 acre Industrial plot No. 265 instead of Industrial plot no 116, in the Industrial Area Phase I at Urban Estate, Panchkula, on the same terms and conditions. Then vide memo of 9/06/1977 (Annexure P-3), the first respondent informed the petitioner. that vide letter No. 13482 dated 5-8-1975 (Annexure P-1), they had been allotted. Industrial Plot No. 191. and were required to complete the construction within three years, which they had failed to do. They were, therefore, called upon to show cause why an order of resumption of the site and forfeiture of whole amount paid or part thereof, be not made. The petitioners then, vide letter of 12/12/1977, (Annexure P-4), pointed out to the first respondent that the notice (Annexure P-3), talked of Plot No. 191, whereas they had been allotted Plot No. 116, vide allotment letter of 5/08/1975, and, therefore, the said notice may be withdrawn. No reply, whatsoever, was received by the petitioners to the said letter (Annexure P-4).;