JUDGMENT K. Kannan J.(Oral).:- The petitioner was allottee of an industrial plot secured through a sale deed on 12.03.1979 and took possession on 02.01.1981. The construction was required to be done under the terms of the allotment and sale within a period of two years and the petitioner having not completed construction had paid an extension fee and had secured an extension till the year 1983. The construction was not completed and the petitioner had reasoned namely an illness of bone disorder of his son and petitioner as a proprietor had sought for further time. The reason seeking for extension was rejected and the plot was ordered to be resumed on 22.02.1995. The resumption order was challenged at successive tiers but came to no fruitful result for the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, challenges in writ petition the orders of resumption and the subsequent orders namely documents in Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-9 passed by the Commissioner, Administrator and Estate Officer respectively in the order of hierarchy from top to downwards. The petitioner had alleged, apart from the peculiar personal difficulties that the petitioner suffered, that there was a discriminatory practice by the respondent in granting further extensions for some other allottees, who had not completed the construction, when this Court had issued directions to the Authority to give an affidavit corresponding the other persons whom the petitioner had named as beneficiaries of such discrimination. The affidavit of Sh. M.P.Bansal was filed along with C.M. No.31734 of 2002, who has in a way admitted that there had been instances where such extensions had been given. The relevant portions in the affidavit reads as under: “That in pursuance of the order/direction of this Hon’ble Court information has been obtained fjrom the various Estate Offices of respondent authority regarding restoration of old industrial plots resumed for non-construction after 1997. It has been revealed that the various Zonal Administrators, HUDA, as well as Commissioner Town and Country Planning, Haryana while exercising the appellate and revisions powers under Section 17(5) and 30(2) of the HUDA Act, 1977 have restored with certain conditions, certain old industrial plots. That the Zonal Administrators, HUDA have also restored some of the resumed old industrial plots in various Urban Estates under HUDA Act, 1977 with certain conditions such as clearance of dues and payment of extension fees and completion of construction within a specified period given to the allottees. That the Zonal Administrators, HUDA have also restored some of the resumed old industrial plots in various Urban Estates under HUDA Act, 1977 with certain conditions such as clearance of dues and payment of extension fees and completion of construction within a specified period given to the allottees. That the Commissioner Town & Country Planning, Haryana while exercising the revisional powers vested under Section 30(2) of the HUDA Act, 1977 have also restored some old resumed industrial plots after 1997 till 2001, keeping in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, such as, that the allottees will take substantial steps to implement the projects and make clearance of all dues/payment of extension fees within a specified time given to the allottees.” 2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has fully paid the consideration and also obtained the sale deed and having further referred to the peculiar circumstances of serious illness in the family of the petitioner, in my view, power of resumption ought not to be exercised. This is more so that the actions of the Authorities shall be non-discriminatory and if there have been other instances where such extensions had been granted on payment of extension fees as required under the relevant Regulations, the same facility ought to have been extended to the petitioner also. 3. Under the circumstances, the order of cancellation of allotment and resumption made through the impugned orders referred to above are quashed. The petitioner shall be restored in possession of the plot on payment of the extension fee as provided under the policy. The fee shall be computed and served to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the payment shall be done within such period as the notice prescribes. The petitioner is bound to comply with every term of extension and the petitioner will not be entitled to any further extension after it is issued pursuant to the orders of this Court. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. ——————