The petitioner's acceptance of the plot change and refusal to raise construction constituted a breach of the allotment letter's terms and conditions. Additionally, the court emphasized that an allottee cannot selectively benefit from a policy while rejecting its conditions.

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

Respondent No.2 is the Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer and respondent No.3 is the Administrator of respondent No.2.

The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Estate Officer ordering resumption of a plot allotted to him in the year 1986 and the forfeiture of the amount deposited by him. The petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 15.09.2009 dismissing his appeal. The has further challenged the order of the revisional authority as though the same sets aside the resumption order directs the Estate Officer to charge an extension fee as per a policy dated 12.04.2013. Finally, the petitioner has challenged a demand notice dated 04.12.2014.

2. The petitioner was allotted a residential plot on the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter dated 01.08.1986. The petitioner had paid the earnest money of 10% but failed to pay any amount thereafter. The acceptance of the allotment was to be accompanied by a further payment of 15% of the total sale consideration. The balance was to be paid in a lumpsum without interest within sixty days of the letter of allotment or in instalments which carried interest at 10% per annum. Clause 7 of the letter provided that the possession of the site would be offered to the petitioner on completion of the development works in the area. The price was subject to enhancement in the cost of land if awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. The failure to pay the amount would make the allottee liable for penalty and resumption. Clause 18 of the letter of allotment reads as under:-

“18. You will have to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession, getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the erection of buildings. This time limit is extendable by the Estate officer, if he is satisfied that non-construction of the building was due to reasons beyond your control, otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed and the whole or part of the money paid, if any in respect of it forfeited in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. You shall not erect any building or make any alteration/addition without prior permission of the Estate Officer. No fragmentation of any land or building shall be permitted.”

3. By a letter dated 06.05.1993, the respondents offered the petitioner possession of the said plot, namely, Plot No.1636 in Sector 55, Faridabad, with effect from 01.04.1993. The petitioner was entitled to take possession personally or through an authorized representative at the time and on the date specified. The letter reiterated that the petitioner would have to complete the construction within the stipulated period failing which the petitioner would have to pay extension fee as per the rate fixed by HUDA.

4. By a further letter dated 29.04.1994, the respondents informed the petitioner that they had decided to change the plot to be allotted to the petitioner. Plot No.1665 was offered in place of the old plot No.1636. The petitioner did not respond to the letter. He raised no objection to the respondents changing the plot for about thirteen years. The respondents were, therefore, entirely justified in assuming that the petitioner had accepted the new plot.

5. By a letter dated 18.03.2003, the respondents served a show cause notice upon the petitioner under section 17(3) of the HUDA Act, 1977. The letter though not produced is referred to in the respondents’ further letter dated 10.06.2009, which we will refer to shortly. The petitioner did not respond to this letter either. It appears that the petitioner, by a letter dated 12.03.2007, requested a change in the plot. This letter, though not on record, is referred to in the respondents’ letter dated 25.06.2007 which rejected the petitioner’s request for a change in the plot. The letter also called upon the petitioner to take p