SURYAKANT ,J. - (1.) The petitioner company impugnes the order, dated 29.05.1981 passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (in short "HUDA"), exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, whereby the resumption order dated 14.07.1977 of the Estate Officer and consequential resumption of 18 residential plots, has been upheld.
(2.) For proper appreciation of the controversy, the facts may be noticed briefly. (a) The petitioner-company was allotted an industrial plot on 07.05.1965 by the erstwhile State of Punjab to set up an industrial unit in the industrial area of Faridabad. The petitioner company also applied on a prescribed format on 25.02.1965 for allotment of some 'residential plots' required for the housing of its employees of the industrial establishment. This fact is evident from Clause 3(c) of the prescribed format in which the petitioner company applied for allotment of residential plots on 25.02.1965 and it reads as follows :- 3(a)..... b).... c) We require the above sites for housing the employees of Industrial establishment located in the vicinity of Urban Estate detailed as under :- Please see covering letter 4..... 5.... 6..... 7..... Dated the 25 February 1965 Yours faithfully, Sd/- Signatures Telephone Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Jeevan Vihar Parliament Street, New Delhi (b) There was yet another application moved by the petitioner on its letter pad on February 25, 1965 addressed to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Faridabad, wherein also the petitioner-company stated as follows :- No. 1406 February 25, 1965 The Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Faridabad. Dear Sir, Subject : Allotment of site in the Urban Estate at Faridabad. We are enclosing herewith our application form for the purchase of site in the Urban Estate at Faridabad duly filled up along with a Demand Draft No.DBE 702761 and DBA 703945 dated 25.02.1965 for Rs. 10,800/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Only) equivalent to the 10% of the price of the sites detailed in para 1 of the application form as earnest money. We would now request you to please allot us the above plots at an early date. With reference to paragraph 3(c ) of the application form, we would like to advise you that we have been allotted Industrial Plot No. FBD/8 for putting up a manufacturing plant and as such would be requiring these sites for the housing of the employees working in our industrial establishment. Looking forward to bearing from you soon in this connection. Thanking you, Yours faithfully for Telepole Manufacturing Company Ltd. Sd/- S. P. Sethi Encl :Application form along with Demand Draft (c) On acceptance of the above stated application, the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Faridabad issued an allotment letter dated 05.06.1965, whereby 18 residential plots of 10 marla each were allotted to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions prescribed therein. The opening part of the allotment letter reads as follows :- To M/s Telepole Manufacturing Company Limited, Jeewan Vihar, Faridabad Street, New Delhi. Memorandum No. E.O/2425 Dated Faridabad, the 5/6/65 Sub: Allotment order of residential plots in the Urban Estate Faridabad. Reference your application dated 25.2.65 for a residential site of Ten Marla. Plots as detailed below have been allotted to you as per terms and conditions of Allotment of Residential sites in Urban Estate, Faridabad and subject to the provision of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 framed under the said Act. The approximate area of the plot and price there of, given are subject to adjustment according to actual measurement the time possession is given......" (d) It appears that after depositing 25% of the earnest money, the petitioner-company defaulted in payment of the due instalment's, hence the residential plots were resumed on 16.11.1966. The resumption orders were challenged by the petitioner-company in CWP No. 1329 of 1969, which was stiltedly allowed by this Court on 13th September, 1973. (e) Soon thereafter, the petitioner company was served with another demand notice asking it to deposit a sum of approximately Rs. 3 lacs towards the enhancement and/or the balance payment of allotment price. The petitioner company challenged that notice in an appeal which was turned down by the Chief Administrator, followed by its further challenge in a revision petition before the State Government. (f) During the pendency of above stated revision petition, the petitioner-company was served with another resumption notice (Annexure P-4) calling upon it to show cause as to why the residential plots be not resumed on the ground that no construction was raised. The residential plots were eventually resumed vide order dated 14.07.1977 on the ground of non-construction. (g) Meanwhile, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner company was dismissed/returned on the ground of non-maintainability and that action came to be challenged at the behest of the petitioner-company in CWP No. 5618 of 1984, which was dismissed by this Court on 6th November, 1985. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner company was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations :- " The S.L.P is dismissed. This will not prejudice the right of the petitioner for filing the application under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Chief Administrator against the resumption. If the said application is made, the High Court will consider the question of limitation bearing in mind that this petition is pending in this Court on its identical question. Status quo will continue for further 6 weeks until any further order is made by the High Court". (h) It appears that "Article 136" is inadvertently mentioned, as their Lordships relegated the petitioner to approach this Court under "Article 226 of the Constitution". Thereafter, the instant petition was filed in which operation of the subsequent resumption order was stayed.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book and the original record produced by HUDA for our assistance.;