JUDGMENT :

Arun Palli, J.

In brief, the case set out in the petition is that vide letter of allotment dated 12.04.2001 (P-1), the petitioner was allotted an Industrial Plot No.199, Sector-25, Part-II, Panipat, measuring 300 square meter. The tentative price of the subject site/plot was Rs.2,70,000/-. And, 10% of which, i.e. Rs.27,000/-, was remitted by the petitioner, along with an application, as earnest money. He was required to deposit a further sum of Rs.40,500/-, within 30 days, which constituted 25% of the total tentative price. The balance 75% of the consideration could be remitted in five half yearly installments. In terms of clause 17 (i) of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to start construction of a building within a period of one year, as per the approved building plans, from the issuance of letter of allotment/offer of possession. However, it was only on 14.09.2005, he was delivered the actual physical possession of the subject site/plot. And, soon thereafter, he submitted the building plans for approvals/sanctions. Which were approved/sanctioned on 22.12.2005. Upon which, he started constructing the site. For he completed construction up to the plinth level, he was issued a DPC certificate dated 08.12.2006 (P-3), by the Junior Engineer, Estate Office, Panipat. He applied for a water connection, after depositing the requisite fee/security, on 18.12.2006, which was sanctioned by the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Panipat, vide Memo No.477, dated 04.01.2007 (P-4). Similarly, for supply of electricity, an electric meter was also installed in the premises on 08.02.2007, by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. For the entire construction at site was complete, per the format (form BR-IV), he, on 19.06.2007, applied for completion certificate. But, vide letter dated 21.06.2007, he was required to submit a rain water harvesting certificate, which was submitted. However, it was, at that stage, he was verbally informed that the subject site/plot had since been resumed on 29.12.2005 (P-5). For the petitioner had failed to construct the site and start production within the stipulated time, per the letter of allotment. Even otherwise, action of the respondent-authorities was apparently unjust and irrational, for the building plans were approved on 22.12.2005 and within seven days, vide order dated 29.12.2005, the site/plot was resumed. For the petitioner was never served with the order of resumption, he applied for a copy of the order on 04.06.2007, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. And after obtaining the same, he preferred an appeal under Section 17 (5) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, ('the 1977 Act'), before the Administrator, HUDA. Upon consideration of the matter, the Appellate Authority, concluded that although, the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms/conditions of the allotment letter, and despite the order of resumption, he carried out construction over the resumed site, but now that the subject site was fully constructed, vide order dated 08/10.01.2008 (P-6), the order of resumption was set aside. Though, it was observed that the Junior Engineer, who had issued the DPC certificate and allowed the site to be constructed, was liable for a disciplinary action under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained the occupation certificate dated 23.10.2008 (P-7), and since then, he was/is running an industrial unit at site.

2. However, being aggrieved, the respondent authorities assailed the order dated 08/10.01.2008 (ibid), in revision under Section 17(8) of the 1977 Act. And, the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 27.04.2011 (P-8), in complete disregard to the true and actual situation, as also the law, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. But, since the order dated 27.04.2011 was never communicated to the petitioner at any stage, he remained oblivious of any such order. Which is w