The revisional authority cannot restore a booth site after resumption proceedings have become final, particularly in cases involving chronic defaulters.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The petitioner-Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short "the HSVP") has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1, vide which resumption proceedings were set aside.

2. A booth site bearing No.21-P, Sector-10, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed booth") was allotted to one Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No.2-allottee") for a total sale consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/-, vide letter of allotment dated 07.04.1998 (Annexure P-1). Possession was delivered on 30.06.1998 (Annexure P-2). As per the letter of allotment, after payment of 25% of the premium, the balance amount of Rs. 9,37,500/- was payable either in lumpsum or in 10 half yearly installments, as per the schedule laid down in the letter of allotment. The lumpsum payment, if made, was to be interest free, whereas the amount of installments which started from 06.10.1998 and went upto 06.04.2003, was specified in the letter of allotment.

2(ii) Admittedly, respondent No.2-allottee paid only 25% of the premium and did not pay the installments as per the schedule. Only some payments were paid up to year 2000. Further, illegal construction of basement was made contrary to the sanctioned building plan, invited action under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the HUDA Act").

2(iii) After issuance of various notices in the year 1999-2000 (Annexure P-3, Colly) and after no response having been received, the disputed booth was resumed vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure P-4) and an appeal was preferred, which was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2002 (Annexure P-5), laying down a condition that respondent No.2- allottee would get the illegal basement compounded, within a period of two months. However, since the same was not done, the resumption order was revived vide letter dated 27.08.2002 (Annexure P-6).

2(iv) Ultimately, eviction proceedings were initiated and notice under Section 18 (1) (b) of the HUDA Act was issued on 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-7). An amount of Rs. 4,73,038/- deposited by respondent No.2-allottee was sought to be refunded but the efforts remained futile as the cheque was received back undelivered. The eviction notice dated 21.11.2011 was challenged by way of an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, a revision petition was filed which was allowed on 04.01.2018 (Annexure P-9) and the disputed booth was restored by the revisional authority, stating that the violation could be regularized by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein was also directed to communicate the outstanding amount to respondent No.2-allottee. It is this order that the petitioner has assailed.

2(v) Respondent No.2-allottee initially put in appearance through counsel but subsequently no written statement was filed, nor the counsel put in appearance, as a result of which respondent No.2-allottee was proceeded against ex parte on 11.10.2023. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 even subsequently when arguments were heard and the case was reserved for orders.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book.

4. It was strenuously urged by Sh. Deepak Sabherwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner that the revisional authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the revision petition. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petition arose out of eviction proceedings and, therefore, the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to go into the issue of resumption and it could at best have dealt with the issue of eviction and could have examined its legality.

4(ii) Learned counsel submitted that instead of doing so, the revisional authority went into the legality of the order of resumption and erroneously restored the disputed booth, subject to certain conditions.

5. We have consid