Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 31.10.1990 whereby Industrial Plots No. 9 and 10 situated in Industrial Area, Rewari were resumed and also to the order passed in appeal on 22.06.1991 affirming the said order of resumption. The petitioner applied for allotment of two adjacent plots of two kanals each on 15.06.1981. On 12.03.1982, a provisional letter of allotment was issued and on deposit of requisite amount, allotment letter dated 12.10.1987 was issued allotting plot Nos. 9 and 10, Industrial Area, Rewari measuring 4620 square yards at the tentative price of Rs. 1,29,360/ - at the rate of Rs. 28/ - per square yard. The petitioner had paid only an amount of Rs. 65,670/ - in installments towards the price of the plots as per the averments in the writ petition.
(2.) IN terms of the conditions of letter of appointment which contemplated raising of construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the plan of the proposed building approved, the petitioner submitted building plans which was sanctioned on 16.12.1987. However, the construction was not raised. The plea of the petitioner in the writ petition is that there was no water supply and it is also asserted that electric supply is still not available in the Industrial Estate, Rewari i.e. at the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 1991. On 02.06.1990, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice as to why the plot should not be resumed for non -construction of the building. The petitioner submitted a reply on 08.10.1990 that allottee is out of station and some other date be given for his appearance. Another notice dated 16.10.1990 was served upon the petitioner to appear on 24.10.1990. The petitioner claims that he gave assurance in writing (Annexure P -8) that he would start construction. It is further stated that the petitioner started boring operations for the erection of a hand pump to ensure water supply but on 31.10.1990 the Estate Officer passed an order of resumption.
(3.) IN appeal, for the first time, the petitioner asserted that delay in construction of the building was due to non -availability of water and other facilities and that the petitioner has now made water available and started construction of the boundary wall. The petitioner also asserted that Government has taken a policy decision to grant extension of time for construction of building but instead of informing the petitioner of the Government policy, the order of resumption was passed by the Estate Officer. Even the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 22.01.1991.;