1. On the basis of highest bid of Rs. 15,75,000/- given by them in the open auction held by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA"), commercial site No. 29, Sector 11, Panchkula was jointly allotted to Smt. Madhu Gupta, Santosh Gupta, Rita Gupta, Satish Kumar, Satwant and Akshey Kumar subject to the conditions stipulated in the letter of allotment Annexure P-1 dated 5.10.1987 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No. 3) in Form (cc) prescribed under Regulation 6(2) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Regulations). Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 23 of the letter of allotment read as under:

"4. You are requested to remit Rs. 2,36,250/- in order to make the 25% price of the said plot/building within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter. The payment shall be made by a bank draft payable to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, and drawn on any scheduled bank at Panchkula. In case of failure to deposit the said amount within the above specified period, the allotment shall be cancelled and the deposit of 10% bid money deposited at the time of bid shall sand forfeited to the Authority, against which you shall have no claim for damages.

5. The balance amount, i.e. Rs. 11,81,250/- of the above price of the plot/building can be paid in lump-sum, without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in 8 half yearly/annual instalments. The first instalment will fall due after the expiry of six months/one year of the date of issue of this letter. Each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount. The interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession.

6. The possession of the plot/building may be taken immediately after making payment of balance 15% amount as demanded in para 4 above, xx xx xx xx

23. Half yearly instalments of Rs..... will fall due on 5th April, every year as under:

Sr.No. Due date Principal Interest Total

1. 147656.25 59062.48 206718.73

2. 177656.25 51679.67 199315.93 147656.25 44256.86 191953.11

4. 147656.25 56914.05 184570.30

5. 147656.25 29531,24 77187.49

6. 147656.25 22148.43 69804.68

7. 147656.25 14765.62 162421.87

8. 147656.25 7382.81 5583406"

2. After about two years of the auction of site, respondent No. 3 issued notices to the allottees under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requiring them to deposit the amount of instalments which had become payable in accordance with the schedule of payment specified in clause 23 of the letter of allotment but they failed to pay the amount due to the HUDA. Instead, they submitted representation dated 22.6.1992 (Annexure-P.3) through Shri Tarsem Jindal, General Power of Attorney asserting therein that interest only @ 10% can be recovered from them from the date on which possession of the site was given but they failed to evoke any favourable response from respondent No. 3. After considering the same respondent No. 3 passed order dated 1.9.1992 for resumption of the site by observing as under :

"As per condition No. 5 of the allotment letter, it is incumbent upon the allottee to pay in the instalments on due date but they did not deposit the amount. Thereafter the following registered notices under section 17 of the huda act for the recovery of sum of Rs. 8,86,400/- on account of instalment were served upon the allottees.

1. Notice under 17(2) vide Memo No. 18817 dated 7.8.1989 for Rs. 8,86,400/-

2. Notice under 17(2) vide Memo No. 22165 dated 12.12.1989 From the above it is pertinent to mention that after the allotment of site and deposit of 15% amount i.e. Rs. 2,36,250/- on 9.11.1987 no payment against the instalments till 2.12.1989 was received, whereas four instalments had become due. It is also evident from the record that no change in their address was intimated to the office by the allottees, but the above said both the notices have been deliberately evaded to be received as the on-delivered notice are lying in the file. On being defaulter the then Estate Officer in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 17(2) of HUDA Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 88,640/-vide Memo No. 403 dated 11.1.1990 and further directed the allottees to pay the outstanding dues of Rs 8,86,400/- alongwith the penalty within 30 days. Even after this no payment was received and a show cause notice under Section 17(3) was served vide Memo No. 7187 of 15.4.1991.

Taking a lenient view following notices under section 17 of the huda act, were again served upon the allottees to give them further opportunities :

1. Notice under Section ] 7(3) vide Memo No. 10209 dated 1.7,1991 forRs. 18,03,075/-

2. Notice under Section 17(1) vide Memo No. 16680 dated 12.11.1991 for Rs. 22,16,756/-

3. Notice under Section 17(2) vide Memo No. 4241 dated 25.2.1992 for Rs. 22,77,106/-.

4. Notice under Section 17(3) vide Memo No. 8371 dated 31.5.1992 for Rs. 22,30,417/-.

It will not be out of place to mention here that all the notices have been returned undelivered deliberately. Thereafter, representation dated 22.6.1992 was received in this office through GPA of the allottee alleging that the development works are not completed in the area. Therefore, the interest on balance amount of instalment may not be_ charged. The representation in question was duly replied vide memo No. 11090 dated 16.7.1992 saying that the contention raised in this representation is not based on facts and a demand of Rs. 23,72,533/- was also raised simultaneously but to no avail. But taking a lenient view further opportunity was also given by issuing a notice under Section 17(4) vide letter No. 11241 dated 20.7.1992 for Rs. 23,72,333/- but no payment against the outstanding dues has been made by them.

From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the allottees as well as GPA has not paid a single penny after the paying of 25% of the cost which was a pre-requisite for the issuance of allotment letter and thus have made wilful default in making due payments although opportunities were given to them. I am of the considered opinion that the allottees and GPA have violated the terms and conditions of allotment letter by not making the due payments, in time. Hence, I order the resumption of the show room site No. 29, Sector 11, Panchkula under powers conferred upon me under section 17 of huda act, also order the forfeiture of Rs. 2,82,978/- out of the amount deposited by them."

3. On the receipt of the order of the resumption, the allottees through their General Power of Attorney filed an appeal under Section 17(5) of the Act. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the general power of attorney of the allottees made a statement that they are ready to deposit the whole amount with interest as per HUDA policy and pleaded that a lenient view may be taken in their case. The Administrator, HUDA (hereinafter described as the Appellate Authority) accepted their plea and restored the site subject to the payment of 50% of the dues along with interest @ 18% per annum within 30 days from the date of communication of the order and the remaining 50% with interest @ 18% within next six months. The relevant extracts of the appellate order are reproduced below :

"The GPA on behalf of allottees alongwith the Advocate appeared in person and argued the case and ADA defended the case on behalf of respondent, HUDA. However, the appellants have conceded and submitted before me during the course of arguments that they are ready to deposit the whole amount with interest as per HUDA policy and pleaded for lenient view while admitting default in the payment of the amount. In view of the undertaking made by the appellants before me in person, I take a lenient view and accept the appeal with the directions that the appellants shall deposit 50% amount due towards them with 18% interest per annum in 30 days time from the date of communication of this order. Remaining amount is to be deposited in two, six monthly instalments with 18% interest as per HUDA policy. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula should report after six months whether 50% of the remaining amount has been received with 18% or not. With the above conditions the Show Room site No. 29, Sector 11, Panchkula is restored and the impugned order of Estate Officer dated 1.9.1992 is hereby set aside. In case of any violation of the above mentioned conditions the order dated 1.9.1992 shall stand confirmed without any further notice."

4. This did not satisfy the allottees who through present General Power of Attorney-Smt. Kanta Devi Bud-hiraja, filed revision petition before the Government under Section 30(2) of the Act with the prayer that the order by the Appellate Authority may be quashed. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department (hereinafter described as the revisional authority) dismissed the revision petition of the allottees by making the following observations:

"I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is admitted fact that HUDA cannot charge interest on instalments more than what has been mentioned in that allotment letter. If a person did not deposit the instalments in time, the only remedy available to HUDA was to initiate resumption proceedings under section 17 of the huda act. In the present case the site in question was resumed by the Estate Officer for non-payment of instalments in time. The appellants made a request before the Administrator to restore the site and agreed to deposit the due amount as per the orders cf the Administrator. Accordingly, the Administrator by taking a lenient view ordered depositing the outstanding dues alongwith 18% interest.

Since the order of the Administrator was on the request of the allottee, the latter should have first deposited the due amount as per the calculation and then, if need be could have filed a revision petition on legal points. The appellant has not come up with a clean hand. In normal course HUDA should have resumed the plot for non-payment of dues in time. However, Administrator in the instant case has shown favour to the appellant by restoring the site despite their default in payment of dues. His order of payment of 18% interest on the due amount is a quasi-judicial order to counter-balance the leniency shown for the restoration of the plot. Hence after taking advantage in one part, the other part cannot be strictly measured in the light of the contractual agreement between the parties. I agree that in normal circumstances the rate of interest should have been charged as per the clauses mentioned in the allotment letter. However, in the instant case the facts are different. The point relating to lack of development at the site is irrelevant in the present context since that was never contested/highlighted at any stage after resumption proceedings. In view of foregoing discussion, I find no merit in there-vision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed."

5. The orders passed by respondent No. 3 and the appellate and the revisional authorities have not been challenged by the allottees but their General Power of Attorney has instituted this petition for quashing of the orders dated 1.9.1992, 4.6.1997 and 6.8.1998 on the following grounds :-

(i) the respondent could not have compelled the allottees to pay instalments of the price because necessary steps had not been taken to develop the site and possession of the site was not given to the allottees till 1998;

(ii) in view of Clause 4 of the letter of allotment, the allottees cannol be asked to pay interest for a period prior to the date on which the possession of the site was offered to the allottees; and

(iii) the respondents are not entitled to charge interest @ 18% per annum.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, the maintainability of the writ petition has been questioned on the ground that Smt. Kanta Devi Budhiraja does not have the locus standi to challenge the orders passed by respondent No. 3 and the appellate and the revisional authorities because the allottees have not come forward for redressal of their so-

called grievance against the order of resumption. They have also raised an objection that in a matter like the present one, writ jurisdiction of the High Court should not be exercised for invalidation of the action taken in accordance with the conditions of contract. On the merits of the case, they have averred that Smt. Kanta Devi Budhiraja cannot challenge the orders passed by respondent No. 3 and the appellate as well as the revisional authorities because she was not a bidder in auction held by the HUDA for the site in question. They have further averred that the development works were complete in the area when the allotment letter was issued and the allottees were asked to take possession of the site immediately after making the payment of balance 15% amount stipulated in the letter of allotment. Still further, they have averred that respondent No. 3 passed the order of resumption of site because the allottees failed to pay the instalments of price on the due dates. The respondents have relied on the instructions issued by the HUDA vide letter No, HUDA-Acctt.87/1398-1408 dated 15.1.1987 (Annexure-R.I) to justify the levy of interest @ 18% per annum.

7. In the replication filed by her, the petitioner has made an attempt to counter the objection raised by respondents No. 2 and 3 to her locus standi by stating that an objection of this nature should not be allowed to be raised for the first time because they had not objected to the filing of appeal and revision by the General Power of Attorney of the allottees. On merits, she has reiterated her plea that the order of resumption could not have been passed by the respondent No. 3 on the ground of non-payment of instalments because the site had not been developed and, in any case, interest cannot be charged from a date prior to the handing over of possession to the allottees.

8. Shri Harbhagwan Singh, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that possession of the site was delivered to the allottees on 21.4.1998 and, therefore, the proceedings held against them of resumption of the site on the ground of non-payment of instalments of the price prior to that date should be declared as nullity. Learned counsel further argued that the authorities of HUDA could not have charged interest from a date anterior to the handing over of possession vide letter Annexure-P. 15 dated 21.4.1998. The third and the last contention of the learned Counsel is that even if the allottees are held liable to pay interest in terms of clause 6 of letter of allotment, they cannot be asked to pay interest at a rate higher than 10%. In support of the last two arguments, learned Counsel relied on clause 5 of the letter of allotment. As against this, Shri O.P. Sharma argued that the petitioner should be non-suited because she is not one of the allottees and none of the allottees has chosen to challenge the order of resumption passed by respondent No. 3 or the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities. He further argued that in view of the unequivocal undertaking given before the Appellate Authority, the allottees and their representative are estopped from challenging the levy of interest @ 18% per annum in accordance with the policy framed by the HUDA. Still further, he argued that the petitioner cannot complain of the delayed handing over of possession because the allottees did not come forward to take possession in terms of clause 6 of the allotment letter. Shri Sharma also controverted the plea of the petitioner that site was not fully developed by pointing out that the allottees had not raised any such objection at the time of giving bid or immediately after issuance of the allotment letter.

9. We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions. A bare reading of the appellate order dated 4.6.1997 shows that the General Power of Attorney of the allottees has unreservedly admitted default in the payment of the price and had ex pressed his willingness to deposit the whole amount with interest as per HUDA policy. He did so with a view to secure a favourable order. The Appellate Authority accepted the undertaking given by him and restored the site subject to the condition of payment of the outstanding dues in two instalments along with interest @ 18%. In our opinion, after having secured favourable order by giving an undertaking to pay the outstanding dues along with interest, me allottees and their General Power of Attorney will be deemed to have waived the objection, if any, to the levy of interest as well as the rate of interest and they are estopped from challenging the same.

10. We are further of the view that in view of the express stipulation contained in clause 6 of the allotment letter entitling the allottees to take possession immediately after making payment of balance 15% amount as mentioned in para 4, the allottees and their representative cannot complaint of delay in the overall possession. As a matter of fact, no offer was required to be made by the authorities of HUDA and it was for the allottees to come forward to take possession. However, as they did not make any effort to take possession after issuance of allotment letter, the allottees and/or their representative cannot be allowed to avoid their liability to deposit the instalments of price together with interest.

11. The order of resumption, in our considered view, does not suffer from any factual or legal error justifying interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A bare reading of that order shows that respondent No. 3 took the extreme step of resumpting the site after he was fully convinced that the allottees were not in a mood to deposit the instalments. He issued innumerable notices to the allottees before resuming the site on the ground of default in the payment of price but they avoided acceptance thereof and after about 3 years from the date of first notice, their General Power of Attorney submitted representation Annexure-P.3 raising the bogey of lack of development to justify non-payment of the instalments. Respondent No. 3 rejected his plea and after giving further opportunity to allottees to pay the dues, which they failed to avail, he passed the order of resumption and we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by respondent No. 3.

12. The petitioner's plea about the lack of development sans credibility because there is nothing on record to show that the allottees had raised this objection at the time of giving the bid or immediately thereafter liven in response to the notice dated 7.8.1991, 12.12.1989, 1.7.1991, 12.11.1991, 21.5.1992. 31.5.1992 issued under Section 17(1), (2)(h), (3) they did not raise such a plea. Therefore, we haw no hesitation to hold that the false plea of lack of development was raised by the allottees solely with the object of avoiding the fulfilment of their obligation to pay the price of the plot in accordance with the schedule stipulation in clause 23 of the allotment letter.

13. We are further of the view that the allottees are bound to pay the instalments of price on the due dates and they cannot avoid their contractual liability on the pretext of lack of development. A similar question has been considered and answered in the negative in C.W.P. No. 9503 of 1996, Ajit Singh and others v. Chandigarh Administration through Administrator, Union Territory and others, decided on 29.8.1996 and Sukhpal Singh Kang and others v. Chandigarh Administration and another, 1999(1) PLJ 219 : 1999(1) RCR(Civil) 288 (P&H)(DB), In Ajit Singh's case (supra), the petitioners contended that they were not bound to pay the instalments because amenities have not been provided by the respondents. While rejecting their contention, this Court held as under:

There is another important reason why no indulgence should be shown to the petitioners. The allotment letter, Annexure-P. 1, contains a clear stipulation regarding the schedule of payment. Para 8 of the allotment letter postulates cancellation of lease on account of non-payment of instalments money. Para 8-A empowers the Estate Officer to allow payment of instalments with penalty upto 100 per cent of the amount due and interest at the rate of 12 per cent for the delayed period. Duty to pay fee and taxes etc. was also of the petitioners. In addition to the conditions incorporated in the letter of allotment, the petitioners were bound to abide by the provisions of the Act and the rules. The general terms and conditions laid down by the Administration form part of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondents. Paras 11, 12 and 21 of the general conditions also contemplate payment of 25 per cent amount as condition precedent to the acceptance of bid; remaining along with interest; and cancellation of the lease as well as forfeiture of the whole or part of the premium already paid. The petitioners took possession of the property and raised construction thereon after having accepted the conditions incorporated in Annexures P.1 and R. 1. They did so knowing fully the implications and consequences of their failure to pay the instalments money. After haying accepted those conditions and taken public property on an assurance that they would faithfully comply with the conditions of payment laid down by the Administration, the petitioners are not entitled to plead that they were not bound to make payment of instalments on the ground that basic amenities were not provided by the Administration. We may add that payment of instalments was not subject to the Administration's providing basic amenities to the petitioner. Rather the conditions incorporated in Annexures P.1 and R.1 made it obligatory for the petitioners to pay their dues. Thus, the petitioners cannot wriggle out of the contract which they had entered into with the respondents. In matters like the present one, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court to permit a party to commit a breach of the terms and conditions of contract of allotment,

In Sukhpal Singh Kang's case (supra), it has been held as under:

"We also do not find anything in the rules from which it can be inferred that the Administration of Union Territory is under an implied obligation to auction fully developed sites. The auction notices and the general terms and conditions, which were made known to the bidders at the time of auction did not postulate transfer of sites with the amenities. As a matter of fact, by virtue of clause 12 of the general terms and conditions of auction and clause 20 of the letter of allotment, it was made clear to the prospective lessess that the Government does not own the responsibility for levelling the uneven sites. It is, thus, clear that the respondents did not invite bids for the sites by making representations to the public that fully developed sites will be auctioned. The petitioners have not disputed the factum of physical transfer of sites to them after the payment of 25% premium. The averments made in the writ petitions and the uncontested assertion made in the affidavits of the AssistanI Estate Officer show that the petitioners have not only erected multi-storeyed buildings on the sites but most of them have also leased out the same io third parties. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument of the learned Counsel that possession of the sites cannot be treated to have been transferred to them."

14. Having negatived the other contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, we shall now deal with the question as to whether the decision of the respondents to charge interest @ 18% is legally correct and justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the judgment of a Division Bench in Aruna Luthra v. State of Haryana and others, 1997(2) PLJ 1 : 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 417 (P&H) (DB) in support of his argument that respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot charge interest at a rate higher than 10%. He also relied on the contents of clause 4 of the allotment letter. Shri O.P. Sharma argued that the levy of interest @ 18% for the period of default is consistent with the policy framed by the HUDA. He invited our attention to the order dated June 2. 1"99 passed in C.W.P. No. 15746 of 1997, Ram Kishan Gulati and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(2) PLJ 243 : 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 261 (P&H)(DB) and submitted that in view of that judgment the decision of the respondents to charge interest @ 18% cannot be regarded as illegal.

15. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. In our opinion, the levy of interest @ 18% is neither illegal nor arbitrary requiring intervention of the Court. In Ram Kishan Gulati's case (supra) an identical question was considered and answered in favour of the HUDA. In that case, the Court took notice of the resolution passed in the 36th meeting of the Finance Committee of the HUDA held on 14.8.1987, the circular letter dated 15.1.1987 and the resolution passed in the 37th meeting of HUDA on 29.3.1988 and then held as under:

"In our opinion, these policy decisions govern the case of the petitioners and other cases of delayed payment of instalments/default in the payment of instalments and, therefore, no illegality"

has been committed by the respondents in charging 18% interest as a condition for restoration of the plot.

We are further of the opinion that the petitioners cannot question the levy of penal interest at a rate higher than 10% because their's is not a case of simple delayed payment. Their plot was resumed by the competent authority because of the non-compliance of the conditions of allotment. That order was upheld by the Appellate Authority and when the revision came up for hearing before the Commissioner and Secretary. Town and Country Planning Department, the counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that his clients will pay the dues of instalments along with interest, which necessarily means that the interest is payable in accordance with the policy of HUDA. In our opinion, after having given an unequivocal undertaking before the revisional authority to pay the dues of instalments with interest, the petitioners cannot turn around and challenge the jurisdiction of the respondents to charge interest @ 18% in accordance with the policy. The plea of the petitioners lhat they cannot be asked to pay interest @ 18%, if accepted, will lead to anomalous results. In that situation, no allottee of the HUDA land would pay the price in accordance with the conditions of allotment and seek relief against the resumption of plot by stating that he/she/it is ready to pay the entire price with interest at the normal rate. Otherwise also, it sounds wholly incongruous lhat an allottee who had defaulted in the payment of instalments of the price is treated at par with the one who regularly pays the instalments with interest.

In this respect, it will be useful to take notice of the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. M/s. Roochira Ceramics and another, 1996(6) SCC 584 : 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 696 (SC). The facts of that case were that the industrial plot allotted to the respondents was resumed under Section 17(4) of the Act due to non-payment of instalments. After remaining unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority, respondents instituted C.W.P. No. 14676 of 1995 before this Court for invalidation of the order of resumption. A Division Bench of this Court accepted the plea of the respondents that they could not pay due to financial stringency and ordered the restoration of plot on payment of the remaining unpaid amount with interest @ 10% per annum instead of 18% calculated by the appellant. Their Lordships ofthe Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and held that there was no justification to accept the plea set up by the respondents."

The Court then proceeded to consider the letter dated 12.4.1999 issued by the Chief Administrator and the judgment of this Court in Aruna Luthra's case (supra) and some other cases and then observed as under:

"The memo dated 12.4.1999 which has been issued by the Chief Administrator during the pendency of this petition shows that on the basis of some judgments of this court and the Supreme Court a direction has been given to charge 10% interest on the delayed payment. As far as letter An-nexure-P.2 is concerned, it is sufficient to observe that the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula did not have the authority to give any assurance to the plot holders about charging of interest etc. He was not the Chief Executive of the HUDA nor was he authorised by the Government to act on behalf of the HUDA. Therefore, the so-called assurance given by him cannot be made basis for declaring that the charging of interest @ 18% on the delayed payment is without jurisdiction. The memo dated 12.4.1999 issued by the Chief Administrator cannot also be made basis for quashing the levy of interest because :

(a) the decision contained in that memo is not based on the decision taken by the Haryana Urban Development Authority as a body corporate and the Chief Administrator, alone does not have the jurisdiction to revise the rate of interest;

(b) in view of the decision taken by the HUDA as a body corporate vide circular dated 15.1.1987, the memo dated 12.4.1999 will be deemed to have been issued without authority; and

(c) though the memo does not expressly refer to the particular judgment of the Court, the same appears to have been issued under a total mistaken impression about the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Aruna Luthra's case (supra); C.W.P. No. 4405 of 1998, Manju Jain and another v, H.U.D.A and others, decided on April 2, 1998 and C.W.P. No. 2363 of 1996, Ashwani Pun v. H.U.D.A., decided on 3.12.1996. However it will be seen hereinafter that none of these decisions has any bearing on the issue of charging of interest on delayed payments or to the cases of restoration of the resumed plots A reading of the judgment of Aruna Luthra's case (supra) shows that S.C.F. No. 33, Sector 7, Faridabad, was allotted to the petitioner on 5.12.1980. However, possession of the site was delivered to her some time in 1990. The Administrator. HUDA, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator (acting as Arbitrator) issued direction in this respect. After some time, the petitioner applied for transfer. At that stage, the respondents demanded penal interest @ 18%. This Court held that the petitioner cannot be made to pay interest because the possession of premises was delivered to allottee on 4.5.1987. The relevant portion ofthat decision is extracted below :

"We have heard counsel for the parties and from their pleadings it is clear that the possession of the S.C.F. was delivered to the petitioner on 4.5.1987. As per the decision of the Administrator, HUDA dated 21.5.1990 the petitioner is liable to pay interest only from the date of delivery of possession. This is also in accordance with clause (6) of the allotment letter. Even according to Regulation 5(7) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulation, 1978, interest on delayed payments has to accrue only from the date of offer of possession of Ihe building. The question that, however, arises for consideration is at what rate is the interest payable. According to the respondents, HUDA had prepared some policy on the basis of which interest is being charged @ 18%. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that in terms of Clause (6) of the allotment letter, the instalments were recoverable together with interest on the balance price @ 10%.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the agreed rate of 10% as stipulated in the letter of allotment. Allotment of S.C.F. through an open auction was the result of a contract between the parties whereby it was agreed between them that the unpaid instalments would be recoverable together with interest at the rate of 10% on the balance price. Clause (6) of the allotment letter contains this stipulation. In the light of this clause, it is not open to HUDA to claim and charge interest @ 18% as is being done in the instant case. All that is stated in para 14 of written statement is that the petitioner is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum as per HUDA policy. What is that policy, under which provision of law has been framed and whether it can over-ride the contractual stipulation contained in clause (6) of the allotment letter has not been spelt out in the written statement. No provision of any law or the aforesaid Regulations has been brought to our notice whereby HUDA could charge interest at rate exceeding the agreed rate of interest.

In the result, it has to be held that the petitioner is liable to pay interest @ 10% as agreed between the parties and that too w.e.f. 4.5.1987 on which date the possession of the premises was delivered to her. Consequently, the communication dated 11.4.1996 (Annexure-P, 11 with the writ petition) is so far it requires the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,77,660/- is quashed and respondents 2 to 4 are directed to work out afresh the total amount, if any, payable to by the petitioner who shall have to pay the same."

Manju Jain's case (supra) was decided on the basis of the judgment rendered in Aruna Luthra's case (supra). In Ashwani Puri's case (supra), the following order was passed by the Court:

"The petitioner has deposited Rs. 3.64 lacs and undertakes to deposit the balance amount, if any, intimated by the respondents through registered post AD as undertaken by them, with 10% interest within one month from the receipt of intimation.

In view of this stand taken by counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of,"

It may be mentioned that the SLP filed by the HUDA against the order in Ashwani Puri's case (supra) was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court on 7.4.1997. None of these decisions have any bearing on the issue of rate of interest payable by the defaulters or those whose plots are resumed due to non-fulfilment of the conditions of allotment. Therefore, the Chief Administrator was clearly in error when he issued the memo dated 12.4.1999. In any case, that memo cannot be made basis for granting relief to the petitioners by ignoring the policy framed by the HUDA and also the fact that charging of interest @ 18% will be deemed to have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Roochira Ceramics (supra)."

16. By applying the ratio of Ram Kishan Gulati's case (supra) to the case of the petitioners, we hold that the decision of the respondents to charge interest @ 18% from the allottees for the period of default does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

17. However, there is merit in the argument of Shri Harbhagwan Singh that the respondents cannot charge compound interest from the petitioner. Neither the Act nor the 1978 Regulations nor the resolutions passed by the HUDA empower respondents No. 2 and 3 to charge compound interest from the allottees in respect of the period of default. Therefore Jo this extent, relief deserves to be given to the allottees.

18. In view of the our conclusion that the allottees are not entitled to pet any relief except to the limited extent indicated hereinabove, we do not consider it proper to non-suit them on the ground of improper impleadment of the parties. The allottees would have been well advised by their counsel to change the description of the parties. However, this lapse cannot be made a ground to non-suit them.

19. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the direction that the respondents shall not charge compound interest from the allottees in respect of the period of default. We also direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to communicate to the petitioner the amount due from the allottees (instalments of the price plus interest @ 18%) within a period of two months, the petitioner/allottees shall pay the amount specified in that communication failing which the order of resumption shall stand revived and the respondents shall be free to take possession thereof in accordance with law. If it is found that the petitioner has already paid excess amount, then the same shall be refunded to the allottees along with interest at the end of four months period in terms of the order of this Court dated 24.9.1998.

20. Petition dismissed