ARUN PALLI,J. - (1.) A writ of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 23.08.2002 (Annexure P1), rendered by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, vide which the booth site and building constructed thereupon was resumed; order dated 27.03.2003 (Annexure P2), whereby the appeal preferred against the order of resumption was dismissed; as also the order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure P10), vide which the revisional authority dismissed the revision petition.
(2.) In brief, booth No.182, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula was allotted to Vidhya Devi, under a rehabilitation scheme, at a tentative price of 2,79,000/ -. Letter of allotment dated
(3.) 04.2000, was issued to the allottee. And in terms of clause 5 thereof, the allottee was required to deposit 15% of the bid money within 30 days from the date of issuance of the letter of allotment. And, as envisaged in clause 6, the balance 75% of the price was either to be paid in lump -sum without interest within 60 days from the date of the letter of allotment or in 10 half yearly installments together with interest @ 15%. The detailed payment schedule was duly set out in letter of allotment itself. But, as the allottee (Vidhya Devi) failed to deposit the installments, site in question was ordered to be resumed by respondent No.3. Resumption was preceded by a show cause notice and the allottee was also provided an opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. The appeal preferred by the allottee against the order of resumption was dismissed by the appellate authority (respondent No.2), vide order dated 27.03.2003 (Annexure P2). The original allottee is alleged to have passed away on 31.08.2010. And the petitioner, i.e. Pushpa wife of Anil Kumar, purports to be her successor -in -interest, for vide a registered Will dated 03.10.2007 (Annexure P6), the allottee purports to have bequeathed the site in favour of the petitioner. 3. Records show that post dismissal of the appeal preferred by the allottee, a civil suit was filed in the year 2007, challenging the order of resumption. The said suit was dismissed by the civil court on 22.09.2007 for lack of jurisdiction under Section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977. And, so was the fate of the appeal preferred against the said decree. Regular second appeal, preferred before this court, was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.10.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner even filed a civil writ petition i.e. CWP No.14193 of 2012, which too was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.12.2012, with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy admissible in law. This is how, the petitioner (Pushpa) eventually preferred a revision under Section 30(2) of the HUDA Act, 1977, assailing the order of resumption as also the order vide which the appeal preferred by the allottee was dismissed. However, the revisional authority dismissed the revision petition, vide order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure P10), being barred by time, for it suffered from an inordinate delay of 8 years 7 months and 11 days, as also on merits. That is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this court.;