Persistent default in payment of instalments disentitles an allottee to writ relief against plot resumption.

The petitioners challenged the resumption of Plot No. 1115, Sector 19 Part-I, Sirsa, under the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977, as well as the revisional order upholding the resumption order dated 13.02.2018.

The plot had originally been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 24.10.2008, with the balance consideration payable in six annual instalments.

The re-allotment letter dated 26.11.2009 specifically prescribed the instalment schedule, with the final instalment due on 24.10.2014, and stated that no separate notice would be issued for payment of instalments.

Despite an offer of possession and repeated notices under Section 17 of the 1977 Act, including notices dated 04.07.2016, 30.09.2016, 25.11.2016, 15.02.2017 and 30.05.2017, the outstanding instalments remained unpaid.

The Estate Officer consequently resumed the plot on 13.02.2018 and ordered forfeiture of 10% of the deposited amount.

The petitioner’s appeal was filed after more than eight months; although the Appellate Authority set aside the resumption order on 23.11.2021 and granted 60 days for payment, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within that period.

On revision by HSVP, the Additional Chief Secretary restored the resumption order on 20.07.2022.

The writ petition was thereafter filed after an unexplained delay of more than four years.

Whether the resumption of the plot under Section 17 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977, for persistent non-payment of instalments was legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution despite repeated defaults, failure to comply with the appellate payment direction, and delay in approaching the High Court.

Whether the revisional order dated 20.07.2022, which restored the resumption order, warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 17 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977, which authorises action, including resumption, for non-payment of instalments or breach of the terms of allotment.

The contractual terms of the allotment and re-allotment letters were treated as binding, particularly the clauses prescribing definite payment dates and providing that no separate notice was necessary for payment of instalments.

The Court relied on Smitra Jain v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another , reported as 2020 (13) SCC 465, for the principle that an allottee who persistently fails to pay instalments despite statutory notices is not entitled to relief under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

The Court also applied the equitable principle that a party seeking discretionary writ relief must approach the Court promptly and with bona fide conduct; unexplained delay and persistent default disentitle the claimant to such relief.

The Court found that the petitioner was fully aware of the instalment schedule and could not rely on the absence of separate payment notices because both the original allotment and re-allotment letters expressly dispensed with such notice.

The final instalment was due on 24.10.2014, but the instalments due from 24.10.2011 onwards remained unpaid even when the resumption order was passed.

The statutory notices issued under Section 17, together with additional opportunities to appear and clear the dues, demonstrated that the resumption was preceded by adequate procedural opportunity.

The petitioner’s conduct was further aggravated by filing the appeal after more than eight months, failing to comply with the 60-day payment direction issued by the Appellate Authority, not contesting the revision proceedings despite service, and approaching the High Court more than four years after the revisional order without explanation.

Applying the principle in Smitra Jain , the Court held that the petitioner was a persistent and wilful defaulter and that no equitable or discretionary relief was justified under Articles 226 or 227.

It upheld the resumption order dated 13.02.2018 and the revisional order dated 20.07.2022, holding that both were lawful and did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

CWP-27289-2026 and CWP-27306-2026 were dismissed as meritless, with no relief granted to the petitioners.