Raksha Gupta and others vs State of Haryana and others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the State Government on 27.10.2010, whereby revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed for the reason that legal heirs of the deceased-allottee have not been impleaded.

Sham Lal Gupta, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was the successful bidder of Booth No. 71, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal, in an auction held in the year 1989. A letter of allotment dated 06.11.1989 was issued in respect of such plot. Though there was delay in depositing 15% of the amount in terms of the letter of allotment, but predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was permitted to deposit the said amount vide order dated 26.06.1990. The allottee failed to deposit the remaining 75% of the amount, which led to resumption of the plot vide order dated 29.03.1995 (Annexure P-2).

The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners did not challenge the said order for 8 years. An appeal was filed on 12.01.2004 before the Chief Administrator, HUDA. Such appeal was dismissed on 07.12.2004 as the reasons for delay were found to be not justifiable and acceptable. Still aggrieved, a revision was filed. During the pendency of the revision before the State Government, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners died. The revision was dismissed for the reasons that the legal heirs have not been impleaded.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was suffering from paralyses, therefore, the order of resumption could not be challenged within the period prescribed for filing an appeal. The said aspect has been considered by the learned Chief Administrator. It has been pointed out that the period of illness relates to the year 1994 i.e. before passing of the resumption order or of the year 2000. Therefore, from the year 1995 till 2000, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not said to be suffering from any illness, which could possibly explain delay in not fling the appeal.

In view of the said fact recorded by the learned Chief Administrator, we do not find any error in the order passed, which may warrant interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.