JUDGMENT

Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.

This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 01.03.2005 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority now Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as 'HSVP'), whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 05.04.2002 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, ordering resumption and forfeiture of 10% consideration amount plus other dues payable up to the date of resumption relating to Shop-cum-Office (SCO) No.7-P, Sector 5, Panchkula, has been set aside and thereafter the challenge thereto by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning and Urban Estate Department, has been rejected vide order dated 28.06.2016 (Annexure P-21).

2. Briefly the facts are that an open auction was conducted by HSVP, Panchkula-petitioner herein on 24.03.1995 of commercial site of Sector 5, Panchkula, which according to the petitioner was a developed market. Respondents being the highest bidder relating to SCO No.7-P, Sector 5, Panchkula, was declared successful. 10% of the price so quoted on the fall of hammer was deposited by the respondents and the terms and conditions (Annexure P-2) of allotment were signed between the parties. Letter of allotment dated 28.03.1995 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the respondents by the petitioner. Since the area was fully developed and the development work was complete, possession of the plot was offered to the respondents to be taken immediately after making payment of balance 15% of the amount as per para 4 of the terms of allotment. It would not be out of way to mention here that the bidders were to inspect the spot before participation in the auction and, therefore, the allottees were well aware of the location of site and development around it. An amount of Rs. 9,37,500/- was deposited by the respondents without any objection or any indication regarding the lack of development at the time of offer of possession of the site. As per the terms of allotment, the allottee was to deposit the installment in 8 half-yearly/annual instalments with 15% interest, which was to accrue from the date of offer of possession. The instalment had to be paid on 10th of month following the month in which it falls due and in case of non-deposit of the amount, the Estate Officer had to proceed to take action for imposition of penalty and resumption of the plot in accordance with the provision of Section 17 of the HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 1977 Act').

3. Respondents failed to pay the 1st installment which had fallen due on 08.09.1995 and notice under Section 17 (1) of 1977 Act was sent to them. Thereafter ten notices were sent under Section 17 (1), 17 (2), 17 (3) and 17 (4) of the 1977 Act.

4. Respondents submitted a representation dated 26.05.1999 to the Chief Administrator, HSVP, asserting therein that the development work was not complete and, therefore, the instalments were not required to be deposited. Comments were called for by the Chief Administrator from the Executive Engineer, Division No.II, Panchkula. They clearly indicated in the comments that the requisite work had been carried out as required for development of the area. It was also mentioned that a cinema hall was already running nearby and there were other sites also being constructed. The dates with regard to the completion of the specific works were also mentioned and it was stated that the water supply, sewerage, SWD and roads have been completed around the site on 23.12.1991, 29.10.1985, 12.01.1995 and December 1987 respectively. It was specifically mentioned that there was a way of ingress and egress from the west side. Electricity work was completed in the area in November 1988, therefore, at the time of allotment of the site in question, completion of the development work