JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

A common question for decision is involved in the aforesaid three writ petitions as to whether the impugned orders, Annexure P-6 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2), allowing the revision petition of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran through District Attorney, HSVP, Panchkula (respondent No. 5), thereby setting aside the order passed in appeal and restoring the resumption order is justified or not? As such, these petitions, i.e. CWPs- 24360, 12376 and 12129 of 2022, are taken up together for discussion and disposal, vide this common judgment.

Facts of CWP-24360-2022

2. As per the facts of the lead case, i.e. CWP-24360-2022, Plot No. 2772-P, Sector 20, Part IV, Sirsa, was allotted to the initial allottee Parveen on 16.02.2009, which was purchased by the petitioners and was re-allotted to the petitioners on 12.07.2010 (Annexure P-1).The petitioners deposited the installment of Rs. 9,17,000/-and thereafter, could not deposit the further installment as Rajesh Garg (petitioner No. 1) met with an accident on 28.07.2015 and suffered various injuries on his leg, neck, shoulder and nervous system and therefore, he was under treatment for a long time. Even father of petitioner No. 1 was ill and suffered heart attack in the month of January 2017. He was also operated upon and was under medical treatment for a long time. The wife of petitioner No. 1 namely, Upasana Garg, was also being treated for illness of fistula and T.B. for a period of 4 to 5 years and she was operated upon multiple times in the hospitals of Ganga Ram and Fortis.

2.1 Whereas, Ashwani Mittal (petitioner No. 2) was residing out of India and the plot in question was allotted on the name of his father namely, Santosh Kumar. Santosh Kumar was also seriously ill since 2012 and therefore expired in 2014. Petitioner No. 2 came back to India from Hong Kong and came to know regarding the allotment of plot in question and also the fact that the same has been resumed vide order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P-2).

2.2. The order of resumption dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) was neither conveyed to the petitioners nor they were served upon before passing the said order. In November 2021, the petitioners came to know about the order of resumption at the time when they wanted to deposit the remaining amount. After arranging the copy of the order of resumption, it came to the notice of the petitioners that a notice under Section 17 (1) of the HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1977 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 12.07.2016 and notice under Section 17 (2) of the Act was also issued on 15.09.2016 and thereafter, notice under Section 17 regarding payment of penalty was issued on 09.03.2017. Thereafter, notice under Section 17 (3) was issued on 20.06.2017 and final notice for hearing under Section 17 (4) was issued on 05.09.2017. None of the aforesaid notices have been received by the petitioners nor these notices were conveyed to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 was under treatment since 28.07.2015, his father and wife were also under treatment. Whereas, petitioner No. 2 was out of India and his father was seriously ill.

2.3 The petitioners challenged the order of resumption by way of filing an appeal, which was allowed, vide order dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Administrator, HSVP, Hisar (respondent No. 3) by considering that the appellants are bona fide and serious about making payments. The plot in question was orde