1. Petitioner No.1 is the widow of Sh. Ram Surjeet Gulati, whereas petitioners No.2 to 4 are his sons and petitioner No.5 is his daughter. They assail the order of resumption dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure P - 3), the order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P - 5) passed in appeal and the order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P - 7), vide which the revision petition was dismissed.

2. The facts, as set out in the writ petition, are that Booth No.38, measuring 22.68 sq. mtr. situated in Sector 8, Manav Chowk, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed booth") was allotted to Ram Surjeet Gulati vide allotment letter dated 05.01.2001 (Annexure P - 1). Sh. Ram Surjeet Gulati is stated to have paid the installments towards the consideration up to June, 2014 (Annexure P - 2). Thereafter, he along with his family members is stated to have settled down at Kurukshetra.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that Sh. Ram Surjeet Gulati never had any knowledge of resumption proceedings having been initiated by the respondents qua the disputed booth because of his not residing at the given address. He unfortunately expired on 01.06.2019, after which, the petitioners came to know from the neighbours in the market that the disputed booth had been resumed on 16.08.2021, regarding which the petitioners had no knowledge.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed on 22.08.2022 (Annexure P - 5) and the revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed on 09.01.2024 (Annexure P - 7). It is the case of the petitioners that against the total cost of Rs.9,30,000/-, initially a sum of Rs.2,32,500/- had been paid within one month of the allotment. The balance amount was to be paid within six years. However, as the market was not developed, Sh. Ram Surjeet Gulati could not start his business but had still paid a total sum of Rs.7,93,000/- up to 05.06.2014. He could not, however, deposit the remaining amount on account of non - receipt of notices. It is the case of the petitioners that since they had not been served and, therefore, could not respond to the notices, the resumption order is illegal and arbitrary. The prayer is to set aside the impugned orders.

5. It is also the case of the petitioners that many similarly situated persons were given relief by the respondents. It has been averred that the petitioners are now willing to pay the entire outstanding amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Green S. Jacob and another v. HUDA and another, 2020 (13) SCC 458 : (AIROnLine 2011 SC 686).

6. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In the short reply, the basic stand that has been taken is that after payment of the initial amount, the balance amount of Rs.6,97,500/- was to be paid in ten half yearly installments starting from 05.07.2001 and ending on 05.01.2006. As per clause 22 of the letter of allotment, 18% interest was chargeable on account of delayed payment. It is the case of the respondents that on account of non - payment, notices under S.17(1), S.17(2) and finally under S.17(3) and S.17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "HUDA Act") were issued starting from 16.01.2003 and the last notice was served on 30.06.2021. Neither any reply was submitted by the petitioners nor any payment was made. It has been averred that on 19.07.2013, one Suresh Kumar appeared before the Estate Officer, HSVP, Amabla in pursuance of notice dated 26.06.2013 and stated that Sh. Ram Surjeet Gulati was his father - in - law and that the entire amount would be deposited in July 2013. However, no amount was deposited. Suresh Kumar again appeared on 28.05.2014 in pursuance of notice dated 09.05.2014 and submitted in writing that the entire outstanding amount would be deposited up to 06.06.2014 but it was not deposited. It has been averred that under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot