Sulakshna Vohra And Another vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 25 July, 2013
Towards the end, learned Senior Counsel representing the
official respondents has relied upon Suresh Chand Vs. The State of
Haryana and others, CWP No.19503 of 2010, decided on
10.01.2013; Anil Godara Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP
No.10061 of 2013, decided on 10.05.2013, Shri Kamal Anand Vs.
HUDA and another, CWP No.3284 of 2009, decided on 04.02.2013
and Smt. Kasturi Devi Vs. The State of Haryana and others (supra),
to contend that booth of the petitioners having been resumed on account
of non-payment of amount of consideration, the order of resumption
cannot be upset. Even this contention raised on behalf of the official
respondents is found to be meritless and the judgments cited on their
behalf are of no benefit to the plea raised on their behalf because in the
cases, as envisaged from the facts of the cited judgments, no payment
whatsoever was made by the allottees after payment of 25% of the
amount of consideration and it was in those situations that it was held
that order of resumption cannot be upset. However, facts and
circumstances of the case in hand as aforestated, are different, from the
facts and circumstances of those cases relied upon, because the
petitioners herein have deposited Rs.18,88,691/- as against the total sale
consideration of booth in question being Rs.3,30,000/- only. The amount,
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.02 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No.1494 of 2013 -13-
so deposited, by the petitioners has been put in use by the official
respondents for more than 10 years or so and no objection is shown to be
raised at any stage against such deposits or any attempt, was made to
return the amount uptil 2012. Therefore, the instant case cannot be
thrown away only because an order of resumption was passed against the
petitioners for non-payment of installments of the balance amount within
time.