JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Petitioner Krishan Lal prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure P-6), order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure P-3).

2. A booth site bearing No.62, measuring 48 sq. mtr. situated in Urban Estate, Rewari was initially allotted to one Braham Singh on 15.05.2007. It was subsequently re-allotted to the petitioner and one Subhash Kumar vide re-allotment letter dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P-1). As per the conditions of re-allotment, the balance installments had to be paid by the petitioner. However, having failed to do so, the booth site was resumed vide order dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure P-3). The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-5) and the revision petition was also dismissed on 18.01.2019 (Annexure P-6), leading to the filing of the instant writ petition.

3. For the appeal had been dismissed primarily on the ground of delay, notice of motion was issued on 18.03.2019 and status quo was ordered to be maintained.

4. On 27.11.2024, after arguments had been addressed to some extent, the following order was passed by this Court:-

'Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was re-allotted booth No.62, measuring 48 Sq. Mtrs., Urban Estate, Rewari, on 14.05.2009. He submits that concededly, petitioner had remitted three installments, whereas he failed to deposit the balance consideration. As a result, the subject site was resumed. Wherafter, the appeal as also the revision preferred by the petitioner have since been dismissed. However, he submits that pursuant to the order of status quo, passed by this Court on 18.03.2019, the petitioner continues to be in actual physical possession of the demised premises. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear all pending dues including interest, penalties etc.. Further, the law is settled that resumption is the last resort. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in Teri Oat Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and others (2004) 2 SCC 130.

Faced with this, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that he be afforded a short accommodation to seek instructions.

Adjourned to 10.12.2024.

To be taken up immediately after urgent matters.'

5. Today, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 informs the Court that as on 31.07.2024, the sum of Rs.1.3 crore was outstanding against the petitioner and as on today the amount would be approximately Rs.1.35 crore (Rs.1,35,00,000/-). He, however, submits that even if the petitioner deposits the said amount, it may not be possible for the authorities to recall the order of resumption, the same having been upheld upto the higher authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire outstanding amount i.e. Rs.1.35 crore (Rs.1,35,00,000/-) shall be deposited within a period of one week from today. He submits that the petitioner is not a rank defaulter and is in possession of the booth site right from the beginning. He submits that under the circumstances, the petitioner may not be deprived of his property and that the bona fides of the petitioner are also clear from the fact that he had approached the Court in time and has been ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount ever since then. He also submits that the appellate authority had erred in dismissing the appeal despite the fact that the delay in filing of appeal was just about one month. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the cases of Teri Oat Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2004) 2 SCC 130 and Dheera Singh Vs. U.T. Chandigarh Administration, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 970, a compassionate view be taken in the matter.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The booth site was re-allotted to the petitioner on 14.05.2009. There was a schedule of payment attached to the re-