Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J.: - The challenge in the present writ petition is to order of resumption dated 14.12.1988 passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA; order dated 23.4.1996 passed by the Administrator as an Appellate Authority and the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Haryana, upholding the resumption order.

2. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of late Devi Lal, who was purchaser of Plot No. 49-CC-III, Mandi Township, Fatehabad, in an auction hold on 14.12.1977 for a sum of Rs.30,200/-. 25% of the total cost was required to be deposited at the time of allotment. Balance payment was to be made in six half yearly installments. Late Devi Lal deposited 25% of the total costs at the time of allotment and paid the amount of 1st, 2nd and 3rd installments falling due in the months of December 1979, June 1980 and December 1980 as well. However, on account of financial constraint, Devi Lal could not deposit the balance amount, as per the petitioners herein, as he was taken seriously ill with cancer and required the money for his treatment. The Estate Officer passed the order of resumption on 14.12.1988 for nonpayment of the last three installments. An appeal was preferred by Devi Lal before the Administrator, HUDA in the year 1996 stating that because of the financial constraints, the remaining installments could not be deposited. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. In the meantime, Devi Lal died on 18.6.2001 after a prolonged illness. The petitioners came to know about the orders of the respondents authorities when physical possession of the said plot was forcibly sought in the year 2006.

3. In a revision before the State Government, the petitioners pleaded that Devi Lal had expired and that the widow and children had no knowledge at all about the pendency of the resumption proceedings. It was argued that on account of floods in the area and on account of illness, there was a financial constraint in making payments. However, they were ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount towards the plot. The revision petition was dismissed on 3.12.2013.

4. Aggrieved by the orders of resumption and the subsequent orders passed, the present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners are in possession of a plot and that it was only on account of great financial constraints that the amount could not be deposited. It was pleaded that Devi Lal, the original allottee and husband and father of the petitioners, suffered from cancer and money was spent on his treatment. It was also pleaded that the respondent authorities have restored plots in similar manner to others.

5. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed their reply submitting that there was in-ordinate delay on behalf of the petitioners in approaching the respondents authorities for restoration of the plot and that full installments had not been paid.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it is noted that the original allottee Devi Lal did, in fact, deposited 25% amount towards the cost of the plot and also paid three installments towards the same. The default occurred on account of the fact that there was financial constraint.

7. In the present case, the petitioners are in possession of the plot allotted to Late Devi Lal. The resumption order was passed on 14.12.1988 and thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed the order on 23.4.1996. But the respondents did not take any action to take over the possession of the property. The action to take possession was initiated in the year 2006 though the order of resumption was passed and that possession could be taken by the respondents herein.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgments passed in the case of “S.K. Khosla v. HUDA and others, CWP No 23482 of 2011 decided on September 25th, 2011 and “Suresh Chand v.