JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma J.: - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-1) whereby plot No.1500-P, Sector 46, Gurgaon allotted to respondent No.3 vide allotment letter dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-2) and transferred in the name of petitioner vide order dated 27.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) has been ordered to be resumed. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No.3 was allotted a plot measuring 420 square meter bearing No.1500-P, Sector 46, Gurgaon and as per the allotment letter dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-2) the tentative price of the plot was fixed as Rs.7,31,808/-. The said allottee i.e. respondent No.3 decided to transfer the plot in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has granted permission for the transfer of plot in the favour of petitioner vide letter dated 27.9.1996 (Annexure P-3) subject to the laid down conditions. The petitioner submitted the requisite documents and the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 (original allottee) appeared before respondent No.2 on 30.9.1996 for completion of paper formalities required for such transfer. The petitioner felt satisfied that the plot in question has been transferred in her name and all the correspondence shall be made with her only. However, it was transpired that despite the aforesaid issuance of letter (Annexure P-3) dated 27.09.1996, respondents were still making correspondence with respondent No.3 (original allottee) and letter dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure P-7) was issued to respondent No.3 raising a demand for payment of additional charge on account of enhancement of land compensation to the tune of Rs.5,28,542/- and thereafter vide letter dated 20.3.2001 (Annexure P-8) possession was offered to respondent No.3 on any working day between 10 am to 12 am within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire outstanding amount at the time of grant of permission for transfer was paid. However, on account of non-deposit of amount as demanded vide letter dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure P-7), an order dated 15.2.2001 (Annexure P-9) was served upon respondent No.3 requiring him to pay Rs.8,94,446/- plus penalty of Rs.89,445/- imposed by virtue of power vested under Section 17(2) of the Act for non depositing the outstanding amount and for not attending the office on the date fixed. Still further a show cause notice dated 18.6.2001 (Annexure P-10) under Section 17(3) of the Act was served upon respondent No.3-Sushil Kumar Gaba asking him as to why an order of resumption of the site and/or building and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money be not made. It is the case of the petitioner that she was never served with any letter or notice despite the fact that respondent No.2 has issued permission of transfer of plot vide order dated 27.9.1996 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.2 in the second week of May 2003 to find out as to when the possession of the plot would be offered. The petitioner was shocked to know that the plot in question has been resumed way back on 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, which was allowed vide order dated 6.10.2005 (Annexure P- 4). However, respondent No.1 challenged the said order by way of appeal and the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) accepted the appeal and held that the complainant is not a consumer and dismissed the complaint. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-1), where the plot allotted to the petitioner has been resumed. 3. On notice having been issued, respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 have filed their respective replies. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 submit that the plot in question was originally allotted to respondent No.3-Sunil Kumar Gaba vide memo No.452 dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner has purchased the said plot from respondent No.3. The original allottee has moved an application for permission to transfer the plot in the name of the petitioner but re-allotment letter was not issued to the petitioner and the permission dated 27.9.1996 to transfer the plot in question to respondent No.3, earlier granted, automatically stood cancelled for not furnishing the indemnity bond signed by two witnesses, which was a pre-requisite condition as envisaged in condition No.7 in the permission to transfer issued vide memo No.5132 dated 27.9.1996 (Annexure P-3). This permission was required to be furnished by the original allottee i.e. respondent No.3 and in this manner the original allottee remained the allottee of the said plot. It has also been pleaded that respondents No.1 and 2 have served a show cause notice under Section 17(3) of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity ‘the Act’) upon respondent No.3 regarding the non-deposit of installments of the plot in question vide letter dated 18.6.2001 followed by another notice dated 30.1.2002 under Section 17(4) of the Act giving opportunity of personal hearing to respondent No.3. Since the original allottee i.e. respondent No.3 neither appeared before the authority nor deposited the due amount of the plot in question, the order of resumption of plot dated 15.7.2002 was passed. The respondents have further submitted that as permission of transfer the plot in favour of petitioner was granted subject to certain conditions but the same were not complied with. Hence, the application for transfer stood automatically cancelled. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the action of the respondents in resuming the plot suffers from patent illegality. The permission for transfer of plot was granted on 27.09.1996. One of the conditions was to submit an Indemnity bond by the allottee and that the parties were required to appear before the Estate Officer. The petitioner and the original allottee appeared before the Estate Officer on 30.09.1996 for completion of formalities and submitted an indemnity bond executed by the allottee. However, in spite of all formalities being completed, the plot was not still transferred. A perusal of para 4 of the written statement shows that the sole reason not to effect the transfer of plot in favour of the petitioner is nonattestation of the indemnity bond by two witnesses though the indemnity bond dated 30.09.1996 (Annexure P-6/3) attested by the Executive Magistrate was submitted by the allottee. 6. The indemnity bond is defined in Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is to be executed as a contract. Section 124 and Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act read as under:- “124. “Contract of indemnity” defined - A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a “contract of indemnity. 10. Section 124 and Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act read as under:- “124. “Contract of indemnity” defined - A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a “contract of indemnity. 10. What agreements are contracts – All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.” 7. In terms of Section 10 of the Contract Act, an agreement is not necessarily required to be attested unless some law mandates a contract to be attested. Nothing was brought to our notice that an Indemnity Bond is required to be attested by law by two witnesses as in the case of Will. We may notice that the practice to get an agreement executed in the presence of the witnesses is to facilitate the proof of the agreement rather than to meet any statutory requirement. The attestation by the witnesses of a contract is not a statutory requirement. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Aloka Bose Vs. Parmatma Devi, (2009) 2 SCC 582 examined as to how an agreement can be said to be executed. It held as under: “17. Section 10 of the Act provides that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void under the provisions of the Contract Act. The proviso to Section 10 of the Act makes it clear that the section will not apply to contracts which are required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or any law relating to registration of documents. Our attention has not been drawn to any law applicable in Bihar at the relevant time, which requires an agreement of sale to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or to be registered. Our attention has not been drawn to any law applicable in Bihar at the relevant time, which requires an agreement of sale to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or to be registered. Therefore, even an oral agreement to sell is valid. If so, a written agreement signed by one of the parties, if it evidences such an oral agreement will also be valid.” 8. In another judgment reported as Smt. Hans Raji Vs. Yosodanand (1996) 7 SCC 122 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even the sale deed is not required to be attested when it observed to the following effect: “10. So far as the applicability to the proviso to Section 68 is concerned, it must be noted that there was no occasion for the respondent to examine any attesting witness to the document in question as it was a Sale Deed which never required any attestation and even if some “marginal” witnesses had attested the document the document did not attract Section 68 of the Evidence Act which in term applies to the proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. xx xx xx Therefore, Section 68 would not cover such a transaction. Hence there would remain no occasion to invoke the proviso to Section 68 with a view to finding out whether the execution of such a document was specifically denied by the adverse party or not. Consequently all the main contentions canvassed before the High Court which are repelled by the High Court cannot be said to be wrongly repelled.” 9. Therefore, we find that refusal to transfer plot in favour of the petitioner for the absence of attestation by two witnesses is wholly illegal, unwarranted and causing manifest injustice to the petitioner. It may be noticed that both the parties appeared before the Estate Officer and have accepted the execution of the documents. Therefore, the action not to transfer the plot is wholly unwarranted and illegal. 10. Therefore, we find that the communication dated 15.07.2002, resuming the plot in question communicated to the original allottee, is not sustainable in law. The same is, thus, set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue letter of allotment to the petitioner forthwith. —————————