Mr. Arun Palli, J.:- A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the orders, dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P11), vide which the industrial site allotted to the petitioner was resumed; dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure P14), and 03.09.2013 (Annexure P16), whereby the appeal as also the revision, preferred by the petitioner, against the said order were dismissed.

2. Facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

3. An industrial plot bearing No.528, Sector 58, Faridabad, was allotted to the petitioner (Maharaj Singh), vide letter of allotment dated 03.07.2001, which is appended as Annexure P1, with the petition. In terms of clause No.15 of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to initiate civil works as per the approved building plans within a period of six months of the offer of possession; to ensure that the unit goes into production within three years from the date of offer of possession, he was required to construct minimum 50% of the permissible covered area and install at least 50% of the plant and machinery in terms of the project report. In terms of clause 21, the actual physical possession of the site was offered to the petitioner vide letter of allotment itself. The petitioner obtained possession of the plot on 27.03.2002. For, the petitioner failed to construct the site within the specified time, vide memo No.26722, dated 13.09.2006, he was served with a show cause notice, under Section 17(3) of the HUDA Act, 1977 (for short, “the Act”); why an order of resumption be not passed. The reply filed to the said notice was not found to be satisfactory by the authorities. Consequently, in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act, petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order of resumption. Petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer (respondent No.4), but failed to render any plausible explanation for non-construction of the site. For, the authorities arrived at a conclusion that there was a willful breach of condition No.15 of the allotment letter, vide order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P11) the site was resumed. Appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, vide order dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure P14), and so was the fate of the revision preferred by the petitioner, for it was also dismissed by the revisional authority on 13.09.2013 (Annexure P16). That is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the site was delivered to the petitioner on 25.03.2002, and in terms of clause 15 of the allotment letter, he could construct 50% of the permissible covered area within three years i.e. till March, 2005. He submits that the authorities completely overlooked clause 5 of the Estate Management Procedure (EMP-2005) of HUDA (Annexure P12), which entitled the petitioner to seek two consecutive extensions, for a period of one year each. Particularly, when vide letter dated 03.10.2006 (Annexure P3), the petitioner had sought an extension in terms of EMP-2005. That being so, he asserts that the petitioner could construct the site within a period of five years from the date he was offered possession, i.e. from March, 2002 to March, 2007. In reference to the letters, appended as Annexures P5 to P8, and photograph (Annexure P9), with the petition, it is contended that the petitioner had indeed completed the construction in 2007 itself, and the authorities were informed in this regard. Thus, he asserts that the resumption of the allotted site was wholly unwarranted. In any event, he submits, for the petitioner had remitted the entire consideration, and constructed the site, the authorities ought not to have ordered resumption. Particularly when the power of resumption has to be exercised as a last resort. Reliance is placed upon certain decisions rendered by this court in M/s Krishna Rubber Private Limited v. Administrator, H.U.D.A., Faridabad, 1995(1)