JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

This judgment shall decide two writ petitions, the first one filed by the allottees seeking implementation of the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department and the second one challenging the same. The facts are being taken from the second writ petition titled as 'The Administrator HSVP, Gurugram and Another v. State of Haryana and others.

2. Vide allotment letter dated 17.03.2008, SCO 98, Sector 9-A, Gurugram, measuring 137 sq. meters (hereinafter referred to as 'the SCO') was allotted to one Bhupinder Gahlot for a total consideration of Rs. 1,43,00,000/- being the highest bidder. The SCO was transferred in the name of respondents No.2 and 3 (petitioners in the first writ petition) vide reallotment letter dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P-2). As per the same, respondents No.2 and 3 were to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,07,25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In case of lumpsum payment, no interest was to be charged. Only a sum of Rs.23 lakhs was paid by the respondents No.2 and 3 in the year 2011 after which, no further amount was paid. Proceedings under Section 17 of the HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated. Subsequently, various notices under provisions of Section 17 of the Act were issued. No response was given to the said notices. Thereafter notice under Section 17 (3) was issued on 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) and that under Section 17 (4) was issued on 04.07.2017 (Annexure P-3-A). Neither any reply was submitted nor the installments were deposited. Ultimately, the SCO was resumed vide order dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure P-4) and 10% of the initial amount deposited was forfeited. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed an appeal dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure P-5) taking the ground of illness of respondent No.2 and that of brother of respondent No.3. The appeal was, however, dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-6). A revision petition was preferred (Annexure P-7) which was allowed by respondent No.l vide order dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure P-8). The Estate Officer, Gurugram was directed to calculate the outstanding dues and convey the same to the allottees within 30 days and the amount was to be deposited within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the calculated demand.

3. It is this order, which has been challenged by the HSVP, in the second writ petition whereas the allottees have sought its implementation by way of the first writ petition.

4. The writ petition has been opposed by the allottees stating that the requisite amount could not be deposited because of the medical exigencies about which they had stated in detail in their pleadings before the authorities and which were accepted by the revisional authority.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. Sh. Deepak Sabherwal, learned counsel representing the HSVP has strenuously urged that the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the revisional authority is not sustainable. It has been argued that no cogent reasons have been given by the authority for accepting the revision petition of the allottees and that the authority referred to a non-existent policy of HSVP while allowing the revision petition. Sh. Deepak Sabherwal has also referred to the resumption order and the order passed in appeal and has contended that the allottees had not deposited the amount even after undertakings having been given before the appellate authority. It has been contended that now once the prices have sky rocketed, the allottees are wanting to pay the amount at which the SCO had been allotted to them. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation. Chandigarh an