JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. (Oral):- The petitioners impugn the orders dated 24.05.1979, 05.05.1981 and 30.01.1989 (Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5) whereby plot No. CP:1120 measuring 1000.69 sq. yds. situated in Sector 22-C, Chandigarh was resumed and the appeal/revision petition against the resumption order were also dismissed. 2. Shorn of the details, suffice to mention that the subject site was allotted as an additional land to the petitioners on 15.07.1959 on free hold basis and was required to be constructed in a time bound manner. The petitioners, however, having failed to raise the construction, the subject site was resumed and that order was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. 3. The aggrieved petitioners came to this Court, when the following order was passed on December 5, 1989: - “Admitted. The impugned order or resumption is stayed subject to the petitioners’ submitting building plans within three months from today. If the plans are so submitted, let the final decision regarding their sanction or otherwise be taken within three months of the date of the submission of such building plans. The petitioners shall thereafter complete the building in accordance with the sanctioned plans within three years from the date of the sanction of the building plans. If the petitioners fail to perform any of these requirements, the stay order shall stand vacated.” 4. The writ petition came up for final hearing on 02.04.2013 when it was stated that since the ‘building plans’ were sanctioned, ‘construction’ were raised and ‘occupation certificate’ had been issued, the petition has been rendered infructuous. This Court, however, was of the opinion that the afore-stated actions were taken place under the interim directions, hence, the matter would require re-hearing on merits, after considering the written statement that may be filed by the respondents. 5. The Assistant Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh has filed the written statement dated 20.09.2013 in which after fully explaining the reasons which prompted the authorities to take punitive action against the petitioners, he has further averred as follows: - “However, the Hon’ble Court while issuing notice of motion to the respondents stayed the operation of the orders dated 31.5.1979 (P-3), 5.5.1981 (P-4) and order dated 30.1.1989 (P-5) vide its order dated 28.4.1989. This Hon’ble High Court was further pleased to admit the writ petition vide its order dated 05.12.1989. This Hon’ble High Court was further pleased to admit the writ petition vide its order dated 05.12.1989. The order of resumption was further stayed subject to the petitioner submitting a building plan within three months and it was observed in that order that if the plans are so submitted let the final decision regarding its sanction or otherwise be taken within three months from the date of submission of such building plans. The petitioners were thereafter required to complete the building in accordance with the sanctioned plans within three years from the date of the sanction of the building plans. In case of failure to perform any of the requirements the stay order was ordered to be vacated. In view of the order dated 05.12.1989 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner submitted the building plans for sanction on 02.03.1990. The plans were then sent to Plan Advisory Committee for scrutiny and the same were returned back with certain observations on 21.3.1991. The private architect of the petitioner collected the building plans and took up the matter with the Chief Architect regarding approval of the architectural design concept for the construction of the building plan on the additional land. The DTP examined the building plan and pointed out certain discrepancies on 27.2.1992. After removal of deficiencies, the concept of the Architect design was finally approved by the Chief Architect on 20.6.1993 and building plans were sanctioned on 02.07.1996. Thereafter the petitioner completed the constructions of the building on additional land and obtained occupation certificate on 31.5.1999.” 6. In the light of the above-stated stand taken by the respondents that the Chief Architect approved the ‘building plans’ which were sanctioned on 02.07.1996 and, thereafter, the building had been constructed and the occupation certificate had also been issued, it appears to us that the matter does not require adjudication on merits. 7. The Full Bench of this Court in Dheera Singh V/s. U.T. Administration, [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3491 (FB) : 2013(1) Law Herald (SC) 440 (P&H) (FB) : 2012(2) Land L.R. 555 (P&H) (FB)] : (2013-1) 169 PLR I, has held that the resumption of site shall be the last resort to be taken in a case of an original allottee except when he/she continued to breach the terms and conditions of allotment, Statute or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder despite sufficient opportunities. 8. 8. Since the petitioners in the instant case, have adhered to the time schedule given by this Court as a last resort, it appears to us that the resumption of the site would amount to be a very harsh action. 9. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, particularly the subsequent events, which have taken place during the pendency of the petition, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of resumption and the consequential orders of Appellate and Revisional Authorities are set aside. ------------------