JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) - Petitioner is a poor citizen, who was allotted a residential plot No. 2105 measuring 8 marlas in Sector 1 & 4, Hisar vide allotment letter dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure R5). He was to deposit 15% of the sale consideration within 30 days from the date of issuance of above letter, which he failed to do. In consequent thereto, allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 10.6.2011 for non payment of the sale consideration and confirming acceptance of the allotment made vide above letter. Against this order, the petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.9.2011 (Annexure P12). Hence, this writ petition. 2. It is on record that when a scheme was advertised for allotment of plots, the petitioner filed an application through a bank. The said application is available on record as Annexure P1. In that application, only name of the petitioner was mentioned therein, without mentioning his address. That application was moved through the bank because the petitioner had raised loan to make payment towards earnest money. In that application, for further correspondence, address of bank was given. Admittedly, residential address of the petitioner was not mentioned in the said application. 3. It is case of the petitioner that by 8.12.2006 he had repaid the amount of loan raised from the bank and to intimate the department, of above fact, he wrote a letter dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P2). In the said letter, complete residential address of the petitioner is mentioned. It is also on record that the respondent-HUDA, before allotment, sent a letter dated 4.5.2007 to the petitioner at his residential address, demanding some documents, which were submitted to the HUDA Authorities by him vide letter dated 15.5.2007 wherein also complete residential address of the petitioner is given. In consequent to letter dated 4.5.2007, the petitioner had also submitted an affidavit mentioning his complete residential address therein which has been brought on record as Annexure P4. 4. As per facts on record, draw of lots was conducted on 14.9.2006 and allotment letter to the petitioner was issued on 5.6.2007 (Annexure R5). The petitioner was to make payment of 15% of the sale consideration within 30 days from the date of issuance of that letter. 4. As per facts on record, draw of lots was conducted on 14.9.2006 and allotment letter to the petitioner was issued on 5.6.2007 (Annexure R5). The petitioner was to make payment of 15% of the sale consideration within 30 days from the date of issuance of that letter. To deny benefit of allotment of a plot to the petitioner and for cancellation of allotment letter, it is stated by HUDA Authorities that letter of allotment was sent to the Union Bank of India, Jhajjar Road at Rohtak and on failure to make payment, plot was cancelled. It appears that the bank had not conveyed that letter further to the petitioner. We are saying so after looking into a document Annexure P9. We have gone through the photostat copies of those documents available at pages 45 & 46, those documents appear to have been prepared afterwards wherein different dates have been given. 5. Be that as it may, the respondent-HUDA, in reply, denied the receipt of letter dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P2). If that was so, it is very surprising as to how the Authorities came to know about the residential address of the petitioner where two letters dated 4.5.2007 and 10.12.2009 (cancellation order) were sent to him. Admittedly, in his application, his residential address is not given. For correspondence, only address of the bank was given. The above fact clearly demonstrates that letter dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P2) was received by the HUDA Authorities and the plot was cancelled saying that a said letter was not received. Acceptance of letter dated 15.5.2007, which was written by the petitioner to the HUDA Authorities asking him to supply the documents has not been denied. If that was so, it was bounden duty of the HUDA Authorities to sent a letter of allotment to the petitioner at his residential address. Once the petitioner had paid the loan amount to the bank and intimation was sent to the HUDA Authorities through letter dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P2), the bank was not under any duty to send letter of allotment further to the petitioner. It appears that without giving any opportunity to deposit the amount for a plot measuring 8 marls only, the allotment was cancelled. The appeal was dismissed by passing a non speaking order. None of the averments, so made by the petitioner, were taken into consideration and without application of mind, his claim was rejected. It appears that without giving any opportunity to deposit the amount for a plot measuring 8 marls only, the allotment was cancelled. The appeal was dismissed by passing a non speaking order. None of the averments, so made by the petitioner, were taken into consideration and without application of mind, his claim was rejected. Under the circumstances, the HUDA Authorities had committed a mistake in not despatching/sending letter of allotment to the petitioner at his residential address which was known to them. The default committed by the petitioner in not depositing 15% of the sale consideration is condonable. 6. In view of the facts narrated above, this writ petition is allowed. Order of resumption dated 10.6.2011 and also order dated 1.9.2011 are quashed. The petitioner is given an opportunity to deposit 15% of the sale consideration within one month from today and upon his doing so, the HUDA Authorities shall reschedule the payment as per terms & conditions of the allotment letter. The petitioner will also be granted liberty to make full payment of the sale consideration. ---------0.B.S.0------------