Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) Prayer in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 25.8.2015, Annexure P.5 passed by respondent No.1, order dated 14.5.2007, Annexure P.4 passed by respondent No.2 and resumption order dated 2.2.2001, Annexure P.3 passed by respondent No.4. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from taking possession of the booth in question from the petitioners.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Shri K.B.Sharma who was a retired teacher purchased Booth No.172, Sector 7, Faridabad and made payment to the extent of 25% as per the terms and conditions of the allotment out of the compensation received by him from the land acquired by the State of Haryana. Petitioner No.1 is the son whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters-in law of Shri K.B.Sharma. Shri Sharma (since deceased) was planning to run his business in the said booth so that he may be able to pay the remaining amount out of the income. However, he was not earning anything and thus was unable to make the payment of the instalments. Consequently, respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (in short, "the HUDA Act") vide letter dated 30.12.2000, Annexure P.1. The petitioners sent reply to the said notice vide letter dated 6.1.2001, Annexure P.2. It was inter alia stated therein that due to unauthorized market development in the residential houses near the HUDA market in Sector 7 and other nearby sectors, it was difficult for the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to earn his livelihood and to make the payment of the remaining instalments. Vide order dated 2.2.2001, Annexure P.3, respondent No.3 ordered resumption of the above said booth. Aggrieved by the order, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal before the Chief Administrator. He also filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief challenging the resumption order which was dismissed vide order dated 7.11.2005. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal which was ultimately withdrawn by him. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed CWP No.4044 of 2007 before this Court seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal dated 12.2.2001 against the resumption order. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.3.2007 with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal within two months. Vide order dated 14.5.2007, Annexure P.4, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the predecessor-in-interest filed revision petition before respondent No.1 which was dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2015, Annexure P.5. In the meantime, Shri K.B.Sharma died and the petitioners were impleaded as legal representatives before respondent No.1. According to the petitioners, they are still ready and wiling to pay the whole of the balance amount with reasonable interest as per HUDA policy. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioners.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.;