As regards the resumption order as also the power with Haryana Urban Development Authority to penalize an allottee on account of delayed payment is concerned, there would be no dispute as regards the proposition that any administrative order passed by the State or its instrumentality, which entails civil consequences would have to conform to the principles of natural justice. Even though, the assertion on the part of Haryana Urban Development Authority was to the effect that number of notices had been issued to the plaintiff/respondent and to such effect, learned counsel would make a reference to Ex.D2 to Ex.D5, Ex.D7 and Ex.D8 yet the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is that no material had been brought on record to demonstrate the fact that such notices had ever been served upon the plaintiff/respondent. It had been noticed that even though, Daya Nand, DW-1 had stated that notices Ex.D2 to Ex.D5 had been served through registered cover but no evidence had been adduced to corroborate such plea. No postal receipt or acknowledgment had been made available on record by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. No witness had been examined by the appellant, wherein, it could have been stated that such notices had been personally served upon the plaintiff/respondent by an official of HUDA. On the contrary, DW-1, Daya Nand had suffered an admission that there was no record available to prove the issuance of notices. In the light of such findings, the order of resumption having been passed at the back of the respondent/plaintiff could not have been sustained in law and on such account, I find no perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
