- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA'), Panchkula on 21.01.1993 and the order in appeal passed by the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula on 21.04.1998 communicated on 12.06.1998 resuming Booth Site No. 2, Sector 4, Panchkula for non-payment of the balance installments. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioners were successful bidders in auction of Booth Site No. 2, Sector 4, Panchkula in respect of which a letter of allotment was issued on 14.11.1990. The petitioners deposited Rs. 55,000/- at the time of the bid. According to the allotment letter, the petitioners were to deposit Rs. 71,250/- within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter and the balance amount of Rs. 3,78,750/- in lump sum without interest within 60 days or in 10 half yearly installments with interest. The petitioners deposited Rs. 71,250/- within the prescribed period and thereafter took possession of the booth site. The petitioners did not make the balance amount which led to the issuance of the notices for resumption of the plot. It was on 21.01.1993, the plot was resumed for the reason that the petitioners have willfully defaulted in making the due payment and even evaded the receipt of various notices. An appeal against the said order was partly accepted on 21.04.1998. The order was communicated on 12.06.1998. The relevant extract from the order reads as under:- "I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The main contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are ready to deposit the entire due amount within the time granted to him if an opportunity is extended to them. ADA appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that the order of the Estate Officer is legal and valid as the appellant failed to pay the dues in time and the same may be upheld. Keeping in view the arguments of both the parties, facts on record and circumstances of the case and pleading of the parties to clear the dues if, opportunity is provided, shows interest of appellant. I set aside the order of Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula dated 21.01.1993 and restore the Booth site No. 2, Sector 4, Panchkula with the direction that the appellant will pay entire outstanding installments alongwith penal interest as per policy of HUDA in 4 equal installments of 45 days each from the receipt of this order. In the event of failure to clear all payments within 6 months order of Estate Officer will stand operative automatically without any further notice to the party. This appeal is decided accordingly."
(2.) Instead of making payment in terms of the order passed, the petitioners filed a civil suit challenging the levy of penal interest. The civil suit was decreed by the trial Court on 06.09.1996 but the appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula on 25.11.2006 holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. However, the second appeal and the civil suit were dismissed as withdrawn on 13.09.2012. It is, thereafter, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the levy of penal interest.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the communication (Annexure P-4) dated 01.09.1998 wherein in response to the communication of the petitioners for issuance of the possession certificate, the petitioners were informed by the Estate Officer, Panchkula that since the booth is already constructed at site, the petitioners should apply for occupation certificate instead of possession certificate.;