G.S.SINGHVI, J.

1. Whether an allottee of the land belonging to Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, HUDA) can avoid payment of the price in accordance with the conditions of allotment read with Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter described as the Act) and Haryana Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations. 1978 (for short, the Regulations) is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by the petitioner for quashing notice Annexure P, 13 dated 22-1-2001 issued by the Estate Officer. HUDA. Gurgaon (respondent No. 4) and order Annexure 17 dated 9-3-200) passed by the Administrator. HUDA. Gurgaon (Respondent No. 3).

2. For the purpose of deciding the above noted question, we may notice the relevant facts.

3. On the basis of highest bid given by its representative in the auction held in November,1996. The petitioner was allotted SCO site No. 24, Sector 14, Gurgaon at a price of Rs. 1,25,15,000/-. This was subject to the terms and conditions embodied in allotment letter Annexure P. 1 dated 27-11 -1996. After paying 25% of the price which included bid money of Rs. 13,00,000/-, the petitioners representative took possession of the site on 31-12-1996 and constructed multi-storeyed building in a period of over 2 years. In the course of construction, certain deviations were made from the sanctioned building plan which were got compounded by the petitioners representative by paying Rs. 3,50,733/- as compounding fee apart from Rs. 20,082/- which were paid as extension fee. However, no attempt was made to pay the instalments of price in accordance with Clause 2 read with Clause 5 of the conditions of allotment despite notice issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 17(1) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 1,53,687/- imposed vide order dated 24-8-2000 passed under Sec. 17(2) of the Act. (Copy of this order has not been placed on the record of the writ petition).

4. The petitioner is failure to pay the instalments of price resulted in the initiation of proceedings for resumption of the site. Respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 13-9-2000 to the petitioner under Sec. 17(3) of the Act proposing resumption of the site and/or building and forfeiture of whole or part of the amount already paid. In response to the said notice, the Director of the petitioner submitted reply dated 22-9-2000 in which he acknowledged the receipt of order dated 24-8-2000 and expressed the desire to pay Rs. 93,86,250/- towards the total cost of the site subject to the condition that interest and penalty may be waived. He asserted that the development works Including covering of nala in front of the site had not been undertaken and there were encroachments by residential dwellings bordering the rear service roads. After one month, he submitted representation dated 11-10-2000 in which he reiterated the request for waiver of penalty and interest but, at the same time, tendered two demand drafts of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs. 2,73,280.25 towards the payment of instalment of principal. This was followed by two more drafts dated 28-11-2000 representing a total amount of Rs. 11,73,741.25. There after, the Director of the petitioner submitted representation dated 19-12-2000 to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Town and Country Planning Department for waiver of interest and penalty. A similar communication was addressed to respondent No. 4. However, neither the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Town and Country Planning Department nor respondent No. 4 responded to the request made on behalf of the petitioner and this can be treated as implied rejection thereof.

5. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 4 issued notices Annexures P. 13 and P. 14 dated 19-1-2001 under Sec. 17(4) of the Act for resumption of the site on account of non-payment of Rs. 1,53,46,873/-. Soon thereafter, he passed order dated 22-1 -2001 for resumption of the site because the petitioners representative failed