JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On March 2, 1984 the petitioner was given the site in dispute for the construction of a Gurdwara for a total premium of Rs. 2,61,430/-. The amount of Rs. 65,360/- had already been paid by the petitioner. The remaining amount had to be paid in three equal yearly instalments. There was a delay. Thus, the proceedings for resumption of the site were initiated. 2. On March 21, 1989, the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer) found that a sum of Rs. 3,46,821/- was outstanding on account of premium, ground rent and interest. Thus, the lease of the said site was ordered to be cancelled. Still further, 10% of the premium plus interest and ground rent as already paid by the petitioner was ordered to be forfeited. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was decided vide order dated August 4, 1998. The Chief Administrator granted another opportunity to the petitioner to make the payment and restored the site to the petitioner. The needful had to be done "within 30 days from the despatch of the order, failing which the order of the Estate Officer" was to become operative. The petitioner deposited Rs. seven lacs within the time of 30 days. However, the amount found due was Rs. eight lacs. Thus, there was delay in the deposit of Rs. one lac. The petitioner sought an extension of time by filing a revision petition before the Adviser. This petition was dismissed vide order dated October 13, 1999. As a result, the order of resumption passed by the Estate Officer in the year 1989 was sought to be implemented. 3. Aggrieved by the action, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 4. Notice of motion was issued. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The case was listed for hearing before a Bench of this Court (H.S. Bedi and R.L. Anand, JJ.) on December 17, 1999. It was submitted that on that date a total sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was outstanding. The petitioner was directed to make that payment before the next date of hearing. This amount was admittedly deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that an amount of Rs. 24,135/- is still due. 2,10,000/- was outstanding. The petitioner was directed to make that payment before the next date of hearing. This amount was admittedly deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that an amount of Rs. 24,135/- is still due. A draft for this amount has been handed over by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to Ms. Deepali Puri. 6. In view of the above, it is admitted by Ms. Deepali Puri, that the entire amount has been paid by the petitioner. In fact, it appears that for a few days delay in the deposit of the amount of Rs. one lac, the petitioner has suffered more than a reasonable penalty. We may also notice that Mr. B.S. Guliani, has stated that totally unreasonable demands have been raised on behalf of the respondents and despite requests the statement of account was never furnished. Ms. Deepali Puri, has today furnished a statement of account to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we are satisfied that the full price having already been paid along with the penalty etc., the resumption order cannot be allowed to stand. It is consequently set aside. However, it is clarified that if on examination of the statement of account, the petitioner finds that the respondents have charged more than what was due, it would be entitled to seek its remedy in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.