Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN PALLI, VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Vijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner (Vijender Singh) assails the order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the appellant order was dismissed. The petitioner also prays for the issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to give back the possession of the resumed property after receiving the full and final payment from the petitioner as per policy.
2. Booth No.14 of the Public Works Department (B&R)Work Shop, Jind was allotted to the petitioner on 17.07.2001 in an open auction. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 2,80,000/-. 25% of the amount was deposited but the petitioner was unable to deposit the remaining 75% amount. Despite issuance of notices, the said amount was not deposited. It has been averred that the petitioner visited the office of the respondents repeatedly to pay the balance amount but the respondents refused to accept the amount stating that the petitioner was late in depositing the same amount.
3. The booth was resumed vide order dated 12.03.2004. An appeal was prefe
Resumption of property must be justified with clear reasoning and due process; it should be a last resort after all recovery efforts fail.
The binding nature of contract terms and conditions, and the voluntary acceptance of the contract by the petitioner.
The revisional authority cannot restore a booth site after resumption proceedings have become final, particularly in cases involving chronic defaulters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
