Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1565 (PNJ)

Kanwaljit Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2000-12-20

G.S.SINGHVI, K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice Annexure P1 dated 14th August, 1991 issued by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh) under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules); the orders Annexure P2 dated 24th June, 1992 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer; Annexure P5 dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh under the Rules for resumption of the site and payment of dues of instalments, ground rent, penalty etc. He has also prayed for quashing of the order Annexure P3 dated 18th September, 1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, the 1971 Act) and the appellate order Annexure P4 dated 16th January, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh. 2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and others were allotted SCO site Nos. 487-88, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh at a premium of Rs. 50,11,000/- in an open auction held on 25th February, 1990 subject to the conditions embodied in the allotment letter dated 19th March, 1990. By virtue of clause 4 of the allotment letter, the amount already deposited by the petitioner was adjusted against 25% of the premium and in terms of clause 5, he was required to pay the remaining 75% in three equated instalments with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with an option to pay the entire amount without interest within a period of 30 days. The petitioner did not opt for lumpsum payment of balance price and, therefore, he was required to pay the remaining amount in three instalments with interest at the stipulated rate. The petitioner took possession of the site, raised construction over it and leased out portions of the building to different tenants, but did not pay first instalments which fell due on 25th February, 1991. This led to the initiation of proceedings under Rule 12 of the Rules. The petitioner took possession of the site, raised construction over it and leased out portions of the building to different tenants, but did not pay first instalments which fell due on 25th February, 1991. This led to the initiation of proceedings under Rule 12 of the Rules. After issuing notice Annexure P1, the Assistant Estate Officer passed the order for resumption of the site and forfeiture of part of the premium The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh did not disturb the findings recorded by the Assistant Estate Officer on the issue of default in the payment of instalments of price and the grounds rent together with interest, but he accepted the petitioners prayer for grant of an opportunity to pay the outstanding dues and restored the site subject to the condition of payment of the outstanding amount along with 10% forfeiture. The operative part of the appellate order dated 2nd March 1995 reads as under :- "The representative of the Estate Officer argued that an amount of Rs. 84,39,903/- is due from the appellant which included penalty, interest and forfeiture etc. The counsel for the appellant agree to make the part payment on 7th March, 1995 in the Lok Adalat to be held in U.T. State Guest House and the remaining he shall be paying by 31st March, 1995. To this payment the representative of the Estate Officer has no objection. In view of the commitment of the counsel for the appellant, I set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the appellant subject to the condition that part payment is made on 7th March, 1995 in the Lok Adalat and the remaining alongwith forfeiture of 2% shall be paid by 31st March, 1995 failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative. The penalty on the last instalment however is waived of." 3. The petitioner did not deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 2nd March, 1995. Instead, he challenged the same by filing revision petition under section 10(4) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 22 of the Rules. During the course of arguments before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, the counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that this client was ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount and sought reasonable time for this purpose. During the course of arguments before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, the counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that this client was ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount and sought reasonable time for this purpose. The Revisional Authority accepted his prayer and passed the order dated 17th May, 1995, the operative portion of which reads as under :- "In this case, the allotment of the site was made on 19th March, 1990 and although the period of more than 5 years has elapsed yet apart from making the initial payment of 25% of the premium amount the petitioners did not take care to make the payment of premium amount and ground rent etc. with the result that the outstanding amount due from the petitioner has accummulated to the extent of more than 76.00 lacs. Anyhow taking into consideration, the fact that the petitioners have already constructed the building over this site and they are now eager to clear all outstanding amounts. I take lenient view in the matter and restore the site to the petitioner object to the condition that they will pay Rs. 10.00 lacs by 31st of May, 1995 and all the balance outstanding amounts in two equal instalments, 1st instalment to be paid on or before 20th June 1995 and 2nd instalment on or before 18th July, 1995 failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative. However, as ordered by the Chief Administrator, they are not liable to pay penalty on Ist instalment. They will, however, pay on 2% forfeiture. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Estate Officer does not cooperate with the party concerned in preparing the accounts statement and, therefore, direction to this effect may be given to the quarter concerned. In order to obviate the chances that the petitioners may not come with the plea that they could not pay the due amount in time because of non-supply of account statement, it is ordered that the Estate Officer shall prepare the account statement of the petitioners indicating the balance amount to be paid by them as early as possible and deliver the same to the petitioners by 26th May, 1995." 4. In the meanwhile, the proceedings under the 1971 Act were initiated by an order dated 18th September, 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of the Estate Officer under the said Act ordered the petitioners eviction from the site in question. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 16th January, 1995. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The facts of the case show that the petitioner is guilty of highly contumacious conduct of persistently committing default in the payment of instalments of price and the ground rent together with interest. He not only violated the conditions of allotment, but also showed scant respect for his own undertaking given before the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator by refraining from depositing the outstanding dues in pursuance of the concessional orders passed by them. In view of this, we would have refrained from granting any further indulgence to him, but keeping in view the fact that wile issuing notice of motion on 17th February, 1995, a co-ordinate Bench had taken notice of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner about his clients willingness to pay the price along with interest with three months and the fact that a part of the amount has already been deposited, we deem it appropriate to accept the oral prayer made by Shri Ram Saran Dass for grant of more time to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount together with interest payable in terms of Rules 12(3) and 12(3)(a) of the Rules and dispose of the writ petition in the following terms:- "(1) Within one month from today, the Estate Officer/Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh shall furnish a statement of the outstanding amount of instalments of price and ground rent together with interest calculated in accordance with Rules 12(3) and 12(3)(a) of the Rules to the petitioners Advocate Shri Ram Saran Dass. (2) Within next one month of the receipt of such statement, the petitioner may file objection against the calculation made by the Estate Officer. (3) Within next one month, the Estate Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh shall decide the objection petition, if any, after hearing the petitioner or his representative and communicate the order to him giving an indication of the time schedule for payment of the entire amount due. (3) Within next one month, the Estate Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh shall decide the objection petition, if any, after hearing the petitioner or his representative and communicate the order to him giving an indication of the time schedule for payment of the entire amount due. (4) The petitioner shall pay the amount mentioned in the order of the Estate Officer within the time stipulated therein, failing which the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on 24th June, 1992 shall stand automatically revived and the competent authority shall be entitled to take possession of the site. (5) The petitioner shall not be entitled to challenge the order of the Estate Officer or the consequently action for taking possession of the site by filing a fresh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing civil suit." 7. The Bench Secretary is directed to give attested copies of this order to the counsel for the parties. Petition allowed.