VIJENDER JAIN,J - (1.) C .M. No. 4353 of 2008 : Application is allowed. Rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 is taken on record. CWP No. 2066 of 2008 :
(2.) THIS petition has been filed aggrieved the order dated 14.12.2007 (P.25) of the Revisional Authority setting aside the order dated 8.12.2006 (P.20) passed by the Appellate Authority. It is the admitted case of the parties that on 17-9-2004, respondent No. 4 invited applications for allotment of industrial plots at Gurgaon and in respect thereto the petitioner applied for an industrial plot along with a demand draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- as earnest money. It is the case of the parties that an industrial plot No. 685, measuring 1000 Meters, Sector 37-II, Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, HUDA respondent No. 4 for setting up an industrial unit of garments thereon. Vide Annexure P.1, petitioner was to give acceptance to the letter and was a deposit a sum of Rs. 6,12,500/- in addition to what had been despited with the application as earnest money i.e Rs. 3,50,000/- within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter to constitute 25% of the total tentative price for the plot. The petitioner sent acknowledgment of the receipt of the allotment letter accepting the plot and requested on 16.10.2004 to respondent No. 4 for grant of 30 days more time to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,12,500/-. It is the case of the petitioner that no reply was received by the petitioner for extension of time. However, the petitioner wrote to the respondents in this regard on 11.11.2004 as well as on 11.4.2005. When no reply was received from the respondents, vide letter 6.12.2005 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- with the respondents by way of three different demand drafts, a copy of the same has been filed along with this writ petition as Annexure P.5. On 23.12.2005, the petitioner again deposited a further sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- with respondent No. 4. Again on 24.2.2006, although the possession of the plot was not given to the petitioner on the date given by respondent No. 4 i.e. 6.1.2006, yet the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,90,000/- with the respondents by way of bank draft. On 14.3.2006, petitioner while informing that he had deposited the instalments due till the date, again requested respondent No. 4 for possession of the plot vide Annexure P.14. On 18.3.2006, again a letter was sent on behalf of the petitioner to hand over the possession of the plot in question. In stead of handing over the possession of the plot, the respondent cancelled the allotment of the plot on 17.4.2006. On 24.4.2006, respondent No. 4 refunded an amount of Rs. 12,70,000/- and Rs. 5,90,000/- after forfeiting 10% amount of earnest money deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that on 1.5.2006, the petitioner after receipt of the cancellation order dated 17.4.2006 (P.16), represented to respondent No. 4 while giving detailed representation vide Annexure P.18.
(3.) WHEN no response was received from the respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent, No. 3 under the HUDA Act against cancellation order dated 17.4.2006 (P.16). Said appeal was accepted by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 8.12.2006. The appellate authority set aside the cancellation order of respondent No. 4 subject to payment of dues, surcharge and and interest as per the HUDA rules. The appellate authority further ordered that Estate Officer, HUDA would intimate the due amount to be deposited within 15 days from the date of the order and the petitioner was directed to deposit the demanded amount within 30 days from the date of demand made by the Estate Officer, failing which the cancellation order would stand revived. In the menawhile, it seems that no amount, as directed by the appellate authority, was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner, on 21.12.2006, again requested respondent No. 4 to intimate him the upto date amount due so that he could deposit the same within stipulated period of 30 days of the order of the appellate authority. As no reply was received from the respondent, the petitioner of his own again deposited further sum of Rs. 5,77,500/- thereby making total payment of Rs. 27,87,500/-. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 4 filed a revision against the order passed by respondent No. 3. Revisional Authority set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.;