JUDGMENT

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of 'mandamus' directing the respondents to restore the originally allotted plot No. 2071, measuring 1 Kanal, in Sector 21 (Part-II), Panchkula, and for delivery of actual physical possession or in the alternative, an allotment of a similar plot of the same size in the same sector.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the said plot was allotted to the petitioner, as per allotment letter dated 07.08.1998 (Annexure P-1) and the total price of the plot was Rs. 20,09,280/- out of which 10% amount, i.e. Rs. 2,00,928/- was deposited at the time of application. After the draw of lots, the petitioner has further deposited a sum of Rs. 3,01,392/- to complete 25% of the total price of the plot. There was an option for payment of the remaining price either in lump sum without interest within 60 days of the issuance of the allotment letter or in 06 annual installments of Rs. 2,51,160/- each payable in August every year. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not carry out the development work in the area. Though, as per Clause 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the site was required to be offered to the petitioner/allottee on completion of the development work. Instead of completing the development work, despite repeated representations made by the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 07.03.2001 (Annexure P-2) under Section 17 (1) of the HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1977 (for short 'the Act') was issued whereby payment of installment of Rs. 6,20,500/- was demanded and further a show cause notice issued as to why a penalty of Rs. 62,050/- should not be imposed upon the petitioner was issued. The petitioner submitted his reply, dated 25.05.2001 (Annexure P-3) to the said notice and requested for withdrawal of the notice. Notice dated 27.07.2001 (Annexure P-7) giving an opportunity of hearing under Section 17 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner, mentioning the outstanding dues as Rs. 6,20,500/- along with interest of Rs. 37,332/- up-to 31.07.2001. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued a letter of offer of possession on 05.04.2001 (Annexure P-14) but the possession was not delivered at the spot as there was no development.

2.1 The petitioner filed an appeal, dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-8) under Section 17 (5) of the Act against the penalty imposed of Rs. 60,500/- on 11.09.2001 on account of non-deposit of outstanding amount. In the meantime, the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (respondent No. 3) issued a notice, dated 29.11.2001 (Annexure P-9) to the petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the Act, as to why the resumption of the site be not done, on account of non-payment of Rs. 6,67,526/- the due amount along with the penalty of Rs. 62,050/-. Reply to the said notice was submitted by the petitioner on 27.12.2001 (Annexure P-10). The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No. 3) sought the report regarding the development work from the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division No. 1, Panchkula, vide communication dated 14.01.2002 (Annexure P-11). However, without awaiting for the reply, respondent No. 3 wrote a communication to the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, dated 05.02.2002 (Annexure P-12). The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Administrator on 11.04.2002 (Annexure P-13), relying up