Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1293 (PNJ)

Paramjit Singh v. Union Territory

2002-11-23

K.S.GAREWAL, R.L.ANAND

body2002
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. It has been prayed by the petitioners that directions be issued to the respondents to hand over the physical possession of site of S.C.O. No. 23, Sector 41-D Chandigarh. It was also prayed by the petitioners that directions be given to the respondents for re-scheduling the period of payment of premium/instalment from the date of handing over the physical possession and also waiving ground rent and interest etc. till the date on which the actual possession of the site is handed over the petitioners. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- On 22.1.1997 the petitioners gave bid for the purchase of commercial site No. SCO 23, Sector 41-D Chandigarh and they were declared highest bidders at a premium of Rs. 36,00,000/-. They were allotted site vide allotment letter dated 5.5.1997. On the same day a copy of the letter was issued to the Executive Engineer, Capital Project. Division No. 2, Chandigarh for handing over the possession of the site in question. It is stated by the petitioners that on 22.4.1997 they met Assistant Estate Officer personally and submitted an application for removal of mango tree from the site. This was again repeated on 12.2.98 and 27.1.1999. Finding no response on 12.10.2000 the petitioners gave an application to the Estate Officer praying for removal of the mango tree from the site so that construction could be undertaken without any difficulty. Inspite of the verbal and written requests made by the petitioners no action was taken rather a threat was given to them that the site in question would be resumed and penalty would follow in case they did not pay the instalments of the bid amount. On 20.2.2001 the petitioners received a show cause notice from the Estate Officer intimating non-receipt of the Government dues from them and it was threatened that the ex parte proceedings would be taken against them. On 29.3.2001, petitioners again made representation before the authorities for the removal of the mango tree so that site may become vacant for the construction of the building. Grouse of the petitioners is that the authorities did not deliver possession of the site in time. In fact the possession was delivered to the petitioners on 23.7.2001. On 29.3.2001, petitioners again made representation before the authorities for the removal of the mango tree so that site may become vacant for the construction of the building. Grouse of the petitioners is that the authorities did not deliver possession of the site in time. In fact the possession was delivered to the petitioners on 23.7.2001. The petitioners had to make entire payment on account of alleged threat of the authorities before 14.2.2001. The tree was actually removed from the site on 21.4.2001. In short, the case set up by the petitioners is that the possession of the site had been delivered on 23.7.2001 making the site fit for construction. Therefore, from the date of allotment till delivery of possession, ground rent should not be charged. Moreover, the interest which has been charged by the respondent authorities on the bid amount should also be refunded. 3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed reply and denied the allegations made therein. According to the respondents, it was a dead tree. In fact the petitioners had been dilly-dallying the matter. The possession of the site was handed over to the petitioners on 5.5.1997. At the time of the auction only general terms and conditions were announced. No assurance/promise was made to the petitioners with regard to removal of tree. The said tree was neither a protected tree nor it was falling within the protected wood land area. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the tree could be cut by the petitioners and no formal permission was needed. It has also been pleaded by the respondents that no request was ever made by the petitioners for removal of the tree as alleged in the years 1997 and 1998. However, request was made by the petitioners only in the year 2000. The existence of the tree was in no way any cause of hindrance to the petitioners. The petitioners had taken this plea just to cover up the delay and no credence should be given to the petitioners. The respondents also submitted that the petitioners applied for possession for first time on 7.2.2001 and the same was delivered to the lessees on 23.7.2001. Lessees made application for removal of tree only on 12.10.2000 after a period of 3-1/2 years whereas they ought to have made such application immediately after allotment of site or offer of possession. The respondents also submitted that the petitioners applied for possession for first time on 7.2.2001 and the same was delivered to the lessees on 23.7.2001. Lessees made application for removal of tree only on 12.10.2000 after a period of 3-1/2 years whereas they ought to have made such application immediately after allotment of site or offer of possession. With these broad defences the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that it was announced at the time of open auction that the tree would be removed. The respondents authorities did not comply with their commitment. On the contrary they had been pressing hard the petitioners for payment of the amount. It was also threatened that in case the instalments are not made in time, the site would be resumed to the detrimental of the petitioners. The counsel further submitted that on account of the threat given by the respondent authorities of the resumption of the site the petitioners had to make payment on or before 14.2.2001. Tree was removed on 21.4.2001 and the physical possession of the site in question was delivered to the petitioners on 23.7.2001. Had the possession of the site in question been given to the petitioners in time, they would have raised construction much earlier. Delay in delivering the possession to the petitioners justifies that the ground rent till the period of delivery of possession should be suspended and the respondent-authorities should not charge interest on the payment as entire fault squarely lies with the respondent-authorities. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment passed in 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 595 (P&H) (DB) : C.W.P. No. 1635 of 2000 Bhupinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 4.1.2001. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that it was not announced at the time of auction that the tree which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, was on the site, would be removed by the respondent-authorities. In fact the petitioners made request for the removal of the tree for the first time somewhere in the year 2001. 6. In fact the petitioners made request for the removal of the tree for the first time somewhere in the year 2001. 6. During the course of submissions it has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had already made payment on or before 14.2.2001 and the possession has already been delivered to the petitioners on 23.7.2001. The tree has already been removed on 21.4.2001. In these circumstances, what we find is that there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The disputed questions have arisen in the present writ petition. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. We dispose of the writ petition by making observations that let the petitioners should file suit for damages or resort to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, is not applicable to the effect of the case in hand. There is no order as to costs. Order accordingly.