ARUN PALLI J - (1.) - A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P4), vide which a residential site allotted to the petitioner was resumed; and also the orders dated 14.05.2008 (Annexure P5), dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P7), whereby the appeal as also the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of resumption were dismissed.
(2.) Facts that are required to be noticed are limited. A plot bearing No. 1882, Sector 13, Bhiwani was allotted to the petitioner for a tentative price of L 1,17,480/-. Petitioner deposited 25% of the sale consideration. And in terms of clause 6 of the letter of allotment, dated 04.09.1991 (Annexure P1), the balance amount could be furnished in six half yearly instalments with interest. Petitioner failed to furnish any of the instalments and thus the authorities resumed the allotted site, vide order dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P4). Petitioner purported to have shifted from Mohindergarh to Bilaspur, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the year 1992. He maintains that he intimated his current address to the respondents for future correspondence. However, in the year 2008, when he visited the office of respondent No.4, it transpired that the site allotted to him had since been resumed. Petitioner never received the notices that were purported to have been issued to him before the site was resumed. He preferred an appeal against the order of resumption, which was dismissed by the appellate authority (respondent No.3) being barred by time, for it was filed after 7 years and 5 months. And, as the allottee had failed to deposit a single penny out of the balance 75% of the price of the site. Likewise, even the revisional authority, vide order dated 11.02.2001 (Annexure P7), dismissed the revision petition. This is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of resumption was passed by the authorities without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner had shifted to Madhya Pradesh in the year 1992 itself and had duly apprised the authorities of his changed address. So much so, even the order of resumption was never served upon the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was ready to clear all the pending dues, thus, the site be restored. Reliance is placed upon an order, dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P8), rendered by the Division Bench of this court, to contend that in an identical situation, the order of resumption was set aside by this court and the petitioner therein was granted two months time to deposit the entire outstanding dues.;