The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to condone the delay in exceptional circumstances and restore the plot, as supported by the GMADA Act, 1966, and previous case law.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Bahri, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'GMADA') for quashing of the order dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 2-Revisional Authority-cum-Additional Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chandigarh.

2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-11) shows that respondent No. 3-Bachittar Kaur had applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 125 sq.yds. under reserve category in the Aerocity Scheme floated by GMADA. Respondent No. 3 was successful in draw of lots and letter of intent (in short 'LOI') was also issued to her. As per the condition No. 5 of the LOI, she had to deposit 15% of the total amount i.e. Rs.2,25,000/- within 30 days from the issue of LOI. This amount was not deposited within the stipulated time and the Estate officer forfeited the 10% and cancelled the LOI vide order dated 20.07.2012 (Annexure P-5). Against this order, she had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority GMADA which was dismissed on 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed Revision Petition and vide order dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P-9), the then Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, Chandigarh also rejected the Revision Petition. Order dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P-9) was challenged by way of filing CWP-23196-2014 titled as Bachittar Kaur V/s. State of Punjab and others and this petition was disposed of on 08.09.2015 (Annexure P-10) by passing following order:-

“The so called explanation given by the petitioner and as available on record, surely does not make out it a case of circumstances where the Authority should be persuaded to condone the delay beyond 6 months. Nevertheless, we grant them liberty to approach the Special Secretary, Government of Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department, and make out a case of strong and exceptional circumstances to seek condonation of delay beyond six months and/or to make out a case for the reduction of forfeited amount.”

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after order dated 08.09.2015, opportunity of hearing was given and statement of allottee was recorded and after taking a liberal view, delay in depositing 15% of the total amount i.e.Rs.2,25,000/- within 30 days from the issue of LOI was condoned and the plot was restored to the allottee-Bachittar Kaur vide order dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-11) which has now been challenged by the petitioner/GMADA in the present writ petition. On 28.07.2016, notice of motion as well as notice re: stay was issued.

4. On 21.08.2019, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3- Bachittar Kaur sought time to place on record additional affidavit. An affidavit of respondent No. 3 was filed on 26.11.2019 by way of CM- 17970-CWP-2019 and in this affidavit, she had given details of the unfortunate instances. The LOI dated 21.03.2011 was issued by GMADA for depositing 15% of the total price of plot within a period of 30 days was received by respondent No. 3 in the 3rd week of April, 2011 and during this period her husband namely Ravinder Singh was bitten by stray dog and he got his treatment from Sector 16, Govt. Hospital, Chandigarh where the injury found on the person of Ravinder Singh was categorized as CAT-3. In this backdrop, she could not deposit the amount within 30 days as per LOI. She made representation on 19.04.2011 for granting some more time to pay the amount. Thereafter, she met with an accident on 05.05.2011 and suffered grievous injuries on her person. She approached the concerned authorities by sending several representations dated 08.02.2012, 29.02.2012, 06.03.2012 and 22.03.2012. Finally, she was served with a show cause notice dated 27.04.2012 to which respondent No. 3 filed a reply by giving all the details of her unfortunate instances. Vide order dated 20.07.2012, th