- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 5.8.1996 (Annexure P-3), whereby respondent no.4 while exercising power vested under Section 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, the Act ) has ordered resumption of plot i.e. plot No.112, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula and building constructed thereon as well as forfeiture of an amount of Rs.2800/-. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure P-2), whereby appeal against order dated 5.8.1996 has been dismissed and further the order dated 17.1.2000 (Annexure P-1), whereby the revision petition filed against order dated 26.10.1998, has also been dismissed by respondent no.2.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that an industrial plot No.120, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula was allotted to one Madan Mohan Sharma, resident of 116-E/1, Sector 14, Chandigarh for the purpose of running a printing press. The said plot was transferred to Bhupinder Singh and Kuldipinder Singh with the permission of respondent no.4. The petitioner is a power of attorney holder of Bhupinder Singh and Kuldipinder Singh. On 14.6.1996, respondent no.4 issued a show cause notice Annexure P-4 to the petitioner under Section 17(3) of the Act, calling upon him to show cause, within a period of thirty days, as to why order of resumption of the site/building and forfeiture of whole or any part of the money should not be made for opening 13 shops in an unauthorized way. Subsequently, another notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear in the office of respondent no.4 on 13.7.1996. On receipt of the show cause notices, the petitioner submitted his reply and has stated that most of the shops which were running on the said premises have been removed or they have themselves left the same. However, dissatisfied with the reply, respondent no.4, while exercising power under Section 17(4) of the Act, ordered resumption of the site/building and forfeiture of an amount of Rs.2800/-.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 5.8.1996 passed by respondent no.4, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal as provided under Section 17(5) of the Act and the Administrator while exercising powers of the Chief Administrator dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.10.1998 and observed that the petitioner has willfully defaulted in stopping the misuse despite ample opportunities being given to him. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition against order dated 26.10.1996 passed in appeal, which was also dismissed by respondent no.1 vide order dated 17.1.2000. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders i.e. the order of resumption of site dated 5.8.1996 (P-3), order dated 26.10.1998 (P-2) passed in appeal and the order dated 17.1.2000 (P-1) passed in revision petition.;