As per case facts, HUDA (now HSVP) allotted a plot which was later transferred to Mohan Lal Goel. Goel defaulted on installment payments, leading to the plot's resumption by HUDA. ... Earlier court decisions involved differing interest rates on delayed payments and the validity of resumption orders, with a Division Bench ruling allottees liable for 18% interest but the Supreme Court conditionally staying this, asking for 10%. Goel successfully challenged the resumption before the Administrator, who set it aside but imposed 10% interest and no extension fee for non-construction due to illegal resumption. The Revisional Authority upheld the setting aside of resumption but held Goel liable for extension fees. Both HUDA and Goel then approached the High Court. The question arose whether the plot was wrongly resumed and if Goel was liable for extension fees for non-construction. Finally, the High Court dismissed HUDA's Writ Petition, upholding the setting aside of the resumption order. It allowed Goel's Writ Petition, quashing the liability for extension fees, citing that since the plot was illegally resumed, no such fees could be charged.