Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the following questions:

[1] "Whether the resumption order was passed on a mere suspicion of sale of booth to non-allottee third party who held a General Power of Attorney of plaintiff-allottee to represent him before HUDA and in violation of the principles of natural justice?"

[2] "Whether there was no due service of material notices under section 17 of the HUDA Act and the final resumption order under section 18 of the Act on the plaintiff-allottee?"

[3] "Whether the appellate order upholding the resumption order was passed in haste on an irrelevant consideration based on a suspicion of sale to third party even before the period fixed for payment of installments was due to expire?"

2. The major facts are that Jeet Ram filed a suit in 2006 against HUDA for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to Booth No. 199, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula which property was allotted to him on April 03, 2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,79,000/- under a rehabilitation scheme floated by HUDA in order to rehabilitate street hawkers in alternative built up sites and of such persons who had been