Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 593 (PNJ)

Raj Karan Boparai v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2002-05-27

BAKHSHISH KAUR, G.S.SINGHVI

body2002
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - This petition involves challenge to orders dated 25.11.1998/1.12.1998 (Annexure P2), 3.3.2000 (Annexure P3) and 14.6.2000 (Annexure P4) issued/passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of Estate Officer), Chief Administrator and Advisor to Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh under the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules). 2. For the purpose of deciding whether the impugned orders suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or legal error, as claimed by the petitioner, we may briefly notice of the facts. 3. On the basis of the highest bid given in the auction held by the Chandigarh Administration on 19.11.1997, the petitioner and others (names not disclosed in the writ petition or the written statement) were allotted residential site on No. 388, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh for a premium of Rs. 63,25,000/- (for the reasons best known to him, the petitioner has not placed on record the letter of allotment issued by the competent authority of Chandigarh Administration). After 7 days of giving the highest bid and depositing 10% of the premium, the petitioner and his co-bidders submitted application dated 26.11.1997 (Annexure P1) for cancellation of the site and refund of the amount deposited by them by stating that it was not possible for them to raise construction. Paras 2 to 7 of that application read as under :- "2. That Raj Karan Boparai purchased the above said site along with others and he is the Indian settled permanently in USA, others are his close relatives. He gave the bid and signed the documents, deposited the amount. As he was keen to have a house in India in his home land for settling on return back after retirement, but he was not aware that every year in addition to the price of the site, ground rent is to be deposited. Rules were not published in the Advertisement made in the paper and he was not aware of the Rules regarding the construction within time bound period and payment of the lease money every year. 3. That it is not possible to come to India every year to check the plot and to pay the dues of the Estate Officer, otherwise the plot is liable to be cancelled and the amount forfeited. 4. 3. That it is not possible to come to India every year to check the plot and to pay the dues of the Estate Officer, otherwise the plot is liable to be cancelled and the amount forfeited. 4. That after careful consideration all aspects and difficulties coming in the way for retaining the above said site, we have decided to request for the refund of the amount deposited in respect of the above said site. 5. That we are not in a position to pay the entire premium of the site with ground rent and interest and then to spend by bringing the amount from Abroad within the time bound period. After considering the financial aspects and financial difficulties in paying the heavy amount for the site and then to construct, Raj Karan Boparai who is the main investor has decided considering all ins and outs finally decided to refund the hard earned income, earned Abroad, deposited for the above said site. We are not in a position to pay and to retain the above said site. It is also difficult to pay the ground rent every year and to suffer the consequences of non-payment. 6. That Raj Karan Boparai is still in service and it is not possible for him to bear the liabilities. The present site is not an asset for him. It is more a liability than assets as huge finances involved for retaining the same. Moreover, he is not likely to come immediately and to occupy the house and to settle. On retirement after getting the huge funds he would like to have the house without any liability. 7. That while sitting in USA, it is not possible to construct the building. None of their close relatives has the capacity to construct. So we have decided to seek refund the above said amount. Under the above said circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the above said site may be cancelled, the amount deposited towards 10% premium of the above said site may be refunded." 4. The Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, to whom application Annexure P1 was addressed did not accept the prayer for surrender. Instead, the Assistant Estate Officer issued notice dated 17.2.1998 for payment of balance of 25% of the premium. He also gave opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his co-bidders on 9.3.1998 and 25.11.1998. The Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, to whom application Annexure P1 was addressed did not accept the prayer for surrender. Instead, the Assistant Estate Officer issued notice dated 17.2.1998 for payment of balance of 25% of the premium. He also gave opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his co-bidders on 9.3.1998 and 25.11.1998. Finally, he passed order Annexure P2 for cancellation of the lease of the site and forfeiture of 10% of the premium plus interest and ground rent. The operative part of that order reads as under :- "Since there is no provision for surrender of site in the Rules ibid, however a show cause notice was served upon Sh. Raj Karan Boparai and others by the office under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 as to why the lease of the said site be not cancelled and whole/part of the premium, ground rent, interest be not forfeited. They were given opportunity of being heard in person and I have heard the applicants through their counsel and gone through the record of the case. The applicants have purchased the site in the open auction held on 19.11.97 and now made a request for the surrender of the site. Though, there is no provision under the rule to accept the surrender of the site yet there is breach of terms and conditions of allotment. Therefore, I, S.K. Sharma, H.C.S., Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh, hereby cancel the lease of the site and further forfeit 10% of the premium of site plus interest and ground rent to the date of cancellation." 5. The appeal filed by the petitioner and his co-bidders against the aforementioned order was partly allowed by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.3.2000 (Annexure P3). He reduced the amount of forfeiture from 10% to 5% and waived off the ground rent and interest. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner and his co-bidders filed revision before the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who rejected the same by recording the following reasons :- "After hearing the parties and going through the provisions of Rule 6 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, I find that the lease shall commence from the date of allotment or auction, as the case may be. Since the petitioners have already participated in the auction and deposited 10% of the amount of premium, the lease has commenced from the date of auction. The Estate Officer was, thus, right in imposing forfeiture while accepting surrender of the site. The Chief Administrator has already given adequate relief by reducing the forfeiture. I, thus, see no justification to give more relief of the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, dismissed." 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders. He has averred that the Assistant Estate Officer did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the lease and forfeit 10% of the premium plus interest and ground because he and his co-allottees had surrendered the site before initiation of proceedings under Rule 12(3) of the Rules. He has further averred that the orders passed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator are liable to be quashed because while upholding the cancellation of lease and forfeiture of a part of the premium, they ignored the provisions of Rules 9, 10 and 12 of the Rules. Still further, he has averred that notwithstanding the reduction of forfeiture from 10% to 5% of the premium, the impugned orders should be declared void on the ground of discrimination because no discernible criteria was adopted by the competent authority for ordering forfeiture of the premium. In para 21-A of the writ petition, he has cited various instances of forfeiture to show that only a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been forfeited in those cases. 7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that the order of cancellation of lease and forfeiture of the premium was passed because the petitioner had failed to pay the instalments of balance premium and there is no provision in the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) and the Rules for acceptance for surrender of the allotted site. They have further averred that the order of cancellation of lease was passed after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his co-bidders, who could not offer any justification for non-payment of the instalments of the premium and ground rent. They have further averred that the order of cancellation of lease was passed after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his co-bidders, who could not offer any justification for non-payment of the instalments of the premium and ground rent. According to the respondents, the lease of the site had commenced from the date of the acceptance of the bid and, therefore, the Assistant Estate Officer did not commit any illegality by ordering cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of a part of the premium. 8. Shri Ram Saran Dass, counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Master Rajwant Singh v. Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, 1999 HRR 240 and argued that the decision of the authorities of the Chandigarh Administration not to accept the surrender made by the petitioner and his co- bidders vide application dated 26.11.1997 and subsequent cancellation of the site and forfeiture of premium should be declared void. He submitted that the lease of the site commences only from the date of execution of the conveyance deed and in the case of the petitioner and his co-bidders, such deed had not been executed. Shri Ram Saran Dass laid emphasis on the fact that the petitioner and his co-bidders had surrendered the site within seven days from the date of acceptance of the bid and, therefore, the Chandigarh Administration did not suffer any financial loss which could justify forfeiture of even a part of the premium. He then argued that forfeiture of 10% premium which was reduced to 5% by respondent No. 2 should be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because in similar cases i.e. Site No. 1457, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh; SCO Site No. 57, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh; Booth Site No. 9, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh; Quite Office Site No. 5, Sector 35, Chandigarh; SCO Site No. 36, Sector 41, Chandigarh and SCO No. 65, Sector 46- C, Chandigarh only a sum of Rs. 5000/- each has been forfeited. 9. Shri R.N. Raina argued that there is no provision in the Act and the Rules for surrender of the site and, therefore, the Assistant Estate Officer did not commit any illegality by ordering cancellation of the site keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and his co-bidders failed to deposit balance of the premium. 9. Shri R.N. Raina argued that there is no provision in the Act and the Rules for surrender of the site and, therefore, the Assistant Estate Officer did not commit any illegality by ordering cancellation of the site keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and his co-bidders failed to deposit balance of the premium. He further argued that the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer for cancellation of the lease was in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules and, therefore, respondent No. 2 and the Advisor to the Administrator did not commit any error by approving the same. Shri Raina controverted the argument of Shri Ram Saran Dass that forfeiture of 5% of the premium is discriminatory by arguing that the competent authority had ordered forfeiture of a part of the premium keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and his co-allottees had retained the allotted site for more than six months and did not pay the instalments of balance premium. He then argued that the absence of definite criteria for effecting forfeiture cannot be made a ground for declaring the impugned orders as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that his case is similar to the instances mentioned above. 10. Before dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it proper to mention that after the conclusion of arguments on 4.3.2002, Shri Raina had placed on record copy of memo No. S/R.60/G/PL-19976/G-7 dated 6.5.2000 vide which Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh informed him that the site in question was re-auctioned on 19.11.1997 for a premium of Rs. 45 lacs only to Shri Tarlok Chand Sharma. Thereafter, the petition was listed for further hearing on 11.3.2002 and it was brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner that as per memo dated 6.5.2000, there was a difference of Rs. 18,25,000/- in the premium offered by the petitioner and his co-bidders and the one offered by Shri Tarlok Chand Sharma at the time of re-auction conducted on 19.11.1997. 11. We have thoughtfully considered the respective arguments. 18,25,000/- in the premium offered by the petitioner and his co-bidders and the one offered by Shri Tarlok Chand Sharma at the time of re-auction conducted on 19.11.1997. 11. We have thoughtfully considered the respective arguments. Sections 3, 22(1), (2) (a) and (g) of the Act and Rules 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules, which have bearing on the decision of the writ petition, read as under :- "Sections 3, 22(1), (2)(a) and (g) of the Act. 3. Power of Central Government in respect of transfer of land and buildings in Chandigarh. - (1) (Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Government may) sell, lease or otherwise transfer, whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to the Government in Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit to impose. 22. Power to make rules. - (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a) the terms and conditions on which any land or building may be transferred by the Central Government under this Act; (b) to (f) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (g) the terms and conditions for the breach of which any site or building may be resumed; transferred under this Act; xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Rules 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules. 4. The Chandigarh Administration may demise sites and buildings at Chandigarh on lease for 99 years. Such leases may be given by allotment or by auction in accordance with these rules. 6. Commencement and period of lease. - The lease shall commence from the date of allotment or auction as the case may be, and shall be for a period of 99 years. After the expiry of said period of 99 years the lease may be renewed for such further period and on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide. 9. Lease by auction, Procedure for. After the expiry of said period of 99 years the lease may be renewed for such further period and on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide. 9. Lease by auction, Procedure for. - In case of auction, at least 25 per cent of the bid accepted by the Auctioning Officer shall be paid on the spot by the intending lessee in the prescribed mode of payment in accordance with Rule 12 : Provided that the Estate officer may, in his absolute discretion, allow the successful bidder to deposit in the prescribed mode of payment not less than 10 per cent of the bid on the condition that the difference between the amount deposited and 25 per cent of the bid shall be deposited in the same manner within 30 days of auction. 10. Delivery of possession. - Actual possession of the site/building shall be delivered to the lessee on payment of 25 per cent of the premium in accordance with rule 8 or rule 9 as the case may be : Provided that no ground rent payable under rule 13 and interest on the instalments of premium payable under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 12 shall be paid by the lessee till the actual and physical possession of the site/building is delivered or offered to be delivered to him, whichever is earlier. 11. Premium - (1) In case of allotment, the premium shall be such amount as may be determined by Chandigarh Administration. (2) In case of auction, the premium shall be the bid accepted by the Estate Officer, as a result of bidding in open auction. 12. Payment of premium and consequences of non-payment or late payment. - (1) In addition to payment of 25 per cent premium under rule 8 or 9 as the case may be, the remaining 75 per cent premium may be paid in lump sum within 30 days from the date of allotment/auction without any interest. (2) If payment is not made in accordance with sub-rule (1) of this rule, the balance of the 75 per cent premium shall be paid in three annual equated instalments along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum (or at such higher rate of interest as may be fixed by the Chief Administrator by a notification in the official gazette) before the commencement of the lease. The first instalment shall become payable after one year from the date of allotment/auction :- Provided that in the case of allotment of site or building of Small Scale Industries as defined by Chandigarh Administration from time to time in the Industrial area, the balance of the 75 per cent of the premium may be paid in ten annual equated instalments or such other number of annual equated instalments as may from time to time be fixed by the Chief Administrator along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum or such higher rate of interest as may be fixed by the Chief Administrator by a notification before the commencement of the lease. (3) In case any instalment is not paid by the lessee by the date on which it is payable, a notice may be served on the lessee calling upon him to pay the instalment within a period of 3 months together with a penalty which may extend upto 10 per cent of the amount due. If the payment is not made within the said period, the Estate Officer may cancel the lease and/or forfeit the whole or any part of the money if paid in respect thereof which, in no case, shall exceed 10 per cent of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the lease : Provided that forfeiture will not be made in addition to penalty : Provided further that no order of cancellation or forfeiture shall be made without giving the lessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the order of cancellation is for non-payment of penalty, the lessee may show cause why the penalty should not have been levied. (3-A) In case any equated instalment or ground rent or part thereof is not paid by the lessee by the date on which it became payable he shall be liable to pay in respect of that instalment or ground rent or part thereof as the case may be, interest calculated at the rate of twenty four per cent per annum from the date on which the instalment or ground rent became payable till such date it is actually paid. (4) Each instalment shall be remitted to the Estate Officer by the prescribed mode of payment. (4) Each instalment shall be remitted to the Estate Officer by the prescribed mode of payment. Every such remittance shall be accompanied by a letter showing full particulars of the site or building to which the payment pertains or a statement giving reference to the number and the date of the allotment referred to in rule 8. In the absence of these particulars, the amount remitted shall be deemed to have been received only on the date when the remitter supplies correct and complete information. 13. Rent and consequences of non-payment. - In addition to the premium, whether in respect of site or building, the lessee shall pay rent as under : (i) Annual rent shall be 2-1/2 per cent of the premium for the first 33 years which may be enhanced by the Chandigarh Administration to 3-3/4 per cent of the premium for the next 33 years and to 5 per cent of the premium for the remaining period of the lease. (ii) Rent shall be payable annually on the due date without any demand from the Estate Officer : Provided that the Estate Officer may for good and sufficient reasons extend the time for payment of rent upto six months on the whole on further payment of 6 per cent per annum interest from the due date upto the date of actual payment. (iii) If rent is not paid by the due date, the lessee shall be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding 100 per cent of the amount due which may be imposed and recovered in the manner laid down in Section 8 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, as amended by Act No. 17 of 1973." An analysis of the provisions reproduced herein above, shows that under section 3 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules, the Central Government and as its delegate, the Chandigarh Administration are vested with wide powers to sell, lease or otherwise transfer any land or building by auction, allotment or otherwise on terms and conditions which may be laid down in the Rules and the property continues to vest in the central Government until the entire consideration money together with interest etc. is paid by the transferee. is paid by the transferee. In terms of Rule 6, the lease commences from the date of allotment or auction, as the case may be, and its tenure is 99 years which is renewable. The procedure for grant of lease by allotment and auction is laid down in Rule 8 and Rule 9 respectively. A conjoint reading of Rules 9, 10 and 11 shows that in the cases in which lease is granted by auction, the highest bid given by the prospective lessee in open auction represents the amount of premium and the deposit of 25% of which is a condition precedent for delivery of possession of the site/building. Rule 12 gives option to the lessee to pay the remaining 75% amount of premium in lump sum within 30 days from the date of allotment/auction without any interest or to pay the same in 3 equated instalments along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent or at such higher rate of interest as may be fixed by the Chief Administrator by a notification in the official Gazette before the commencement of the lease. If the lessee fails to pay instalment, a notice is to be given to him to make payment within 3 months together with penalty which may extend upto 10 per cent of the amount due. If the payment is not made in terms of the notice, the Estate Officer can cancel the lease and/or forfeit the whole or any part of the money already paid. Rule 12(3-A) prescribes higher rate of interest which the lessee is required to pay in case any equated instalment or ground rent or part thereof is not deposited on due date. Rule 13 prescribes the payment of annual ground rent which the lessee has to pay in terms of conditions of lease. Rule 13(iii) empowers the competent authority to impose penalty upto 100 per cent in case of the non-payment of ground rent. 12. The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions makes it clear that lease of the site commences from the date of auction and not from the date of delivery of actual possession and the liability of the highest bidder to pay the premium starts from the date of commencement of the lease. 12. The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions makes it clear that lease of the site commences from the date of auction and not from the date of delivery of actual possession and the liability of the highest bidder to pay the premium starts from the date of commencement of the lease. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of Shri Ram Saran Dass that the lease of the site for which the petitioner and others had given the highest bid had not commenced till the date of application for surrender and the Assistant Estate Officer did not have the jurisdiction to order its cancellation. This view of ours is fully supported by the judgment of the Division Bench in Sukhpal Singh Kang and others v. Chandigarh Administration and another, 1999(1) PLR 54 (paragraph 8). 13. The argument of Shri Ram Saran Dass that the authorities of Chandigarh Administration were bound to accept the offer of surrender made by the petitioner and his co-bidders is meritless and deserves to be rejected because the provisions of the Act and the Rules including those reproduced above do not contemplate surrender of the site by the highest bidder/lessee and in the absence of any express provision authorising the Estate Officer of any other comment authority to accept the surrender, they did not commit any illegality by indirectly declining the offer of surrender made by the petitioner and his co-bidders. 14. The question as to whether the allottee is entitled to surrender the site as of right and claim refund of the amount deposited by him was considered in H.U.D.A. and another v. Kewal Krishan Goel and others, AIR 1996 SC 1981 and answered in the negative. The facts of that case were that after accepting the allotment and depositing some instalments of price, the respondent offered to surrender the site and requested that the amount deposited by him may be refunded. The competent authority of the HUDA not only declined his request, but also cancelled the allotment and forfeited 10% of the total amount deposited by him. The respondent challenged the cancellation of lease and forfeiture of a part of the premium by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court accepted his plea and quashed the order of forfeiture. The respondent challenged the cancellation of lease and forfeiture of a part of the premium by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court accepted his plea and quashed the order of forfeiture. While reversing the order of this Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under :- ".........the allottee having accepted the allotment and having made some payment on instalment basis then made the request to surrender the land, has committed default on his part and, therefore, the competent authority would be fully justified in forfeiting the earnest money which had been deposited and not the 10% of the amount deposited as held by the High Court. The High Court was totally in error in issuing the direction in question on the ground that the respondents were not in a position to deliver the possession of the land to the allottee. It may be stated that in the letter of allotment no period was stipulated within which the possession of the land was to be delivered. The land in question was required to be developed and then to be delivered and in absence of any period in the letter of allotment, it was required to be delivered within a reasonable period. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the reasonability had lapsed particularly when the allottees had not paid up the entire instalment due and merely paid a part thereof." 15. Reference in this connection may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Grihsthapana Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 1176. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of earnest money deposited by the petitioner on the ground that after having accepted the allotment, the society had failed to pay the premium. 16. By applying the ratio of the above mentioned decisions to the facts of this case, we hold that the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer for cancellation of the lease of the site and forfeiture of a part of the premium does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or legal error. 17. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we may advert to the decision of this Court in Master Rajwant Singhs case (supra). 17. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we may advert to the decision of this Court in Master Rajwant Singhs case (supra). The facts of that case were that the petitioners were allotted SCO site No. 268, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh for a premium of Rs. 5,16,000/-. The allottees paid 25% of the premium before the due date. However, before possession of the site could be delivered, their father submitted an application to the Estate Officer conveying their inability to keep the site and requested for cancellation of the allotment and refund of the premium already deposited. The Assistant Estate officer not only rejected his prayer, but also initiated proceedings under section 12(3) of the Rules proposing cancellation of the lease of the site and forfeiture of the premium. The father of the petitioners appeared before the Assistant Estate Officer and reiterated his request for surrender of the site. The concerned officer did not accept his plea and cancelled the lease. His order was upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities. The petitioners challenged the order of cancellation of lease and forfeiture of premium, as also the appellate and revisional orders on the following grounds :- "(i) The Assistant Estate Officer did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the lease and forfeit a part of the premium because they did not commit default in the payment of instalments of premium. (ii) The conditional offer of surrender made by their father could not have been made basis for cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of a part of the premium. (iii) The surrender of the lease could not have been accepted by the Assistant Estate Officer ignoring the fact that it was contrary to the interest of the minors. (iv) The dismissal of their appeal and revision should be treated as vitiated by an error of law because the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Estate Officer to cancel the lease has not been decided by either of the authorities." 18. This Court accepted the petitioners plea against cancellation of the site and held as under :- "A bare reading of the above extracted rule show that the competent authority can initiate action for cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the premium or a part thereof if the lessee fails to pay the instalment of premium in accordance with Rule 12(2). It envisages giving of 3 months notice to the lessees to deposit the amount of instalment and empowers the Estate Officer to initiate action for cancellation of the lease if the lessee fails to pay the instalment along with interest in spite of the notice. It is, thus clear that the action under Rule 12(3) can be initiated by the competent authority only if the lessee commits default in the payment of instalment of premium in accordance with Rule 12(2) and not otherwise. The facts of this case show that first instalment of the premium was payable by the petitioners on 10.7.1986 in accordance with Rule 12(2) read with clause 5 of the letter of allotment but 8 months before that date, show cause notice dated 13.12.1985 was issued by the Assistant Estate Officer under Rule 12(3) proposing cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the premium. The order of cancellation of lease was also passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on 7.1.1986 i.e. more then 6 months before the first instalment was to be deposited by the petitioners. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the order Annexure P-3 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer for cancellation of the lease of the site and forfeiture of Rs. 20,000/- is without jurisdiction." 19. In our opinion, the decision of Master Rajwant Singhs case (supra) has no bearing on the case in hand because what the petitioners had challenged in that case was the cancellation of the lease of the site on the ground that the conditional offer of surrender made by their father could not have been accepted ignoring the interest of the minors and they were entitled to restoration of the site. In the present case, the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the cancellation of lease. Rather, the relief sought by him is confined to the refund of the amount forfeited by the Assistant Estate Officer. It is also not his case that the Assistant Estate Officer had acted on misrepresentation of fact as was done in the case of Master Rajwant Singh. Therefore, the proposition laid down in that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 20. It is also not his case that the Assistant Estate Officer had acted on misrepresentation of fact as was done in the case of Master Rajwant Singh. Therefore, the proposition laid down in that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 20. The plea of discrimination as raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected because he has failed to discharge the primary burden of showing that the action of the respondents to forfeit 5% of the premium is irrational and arbitrary. He has not produced any evidence before the Court to show that his case is similar to the instances quoted in paragraph 21-A of the writ petition. The conditions subject to which the allotments were made to the persons referred to in paragraph 21-A and the orders of forfeiture passed in their cases have not been placed on record. In the absence of these documents it is not possible to accept the argument of the learned counsel that forfeiture of 5% of the premium deposited by the petitioner and his co-bidders is vitiated due to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No other point has been argued. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.