Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1450 (PNJ)

Gian Chand etc. v. Commissioner Patiala etc.

2003-10-17

R.P.S.PAWAR

body2003
ORDER R.P.S. Pawar, FC. - These are two interconnected Revision Petitions under Section 15(3) of Punjab New Mandi Township Development and Regulation Act, 1960 against the orders dated 24.4.2001 in both the cases passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Brief facts of the revision petitions are the following :- i) R.O.R. No. 129 of 2002 2. The Petitioner Shri Gian Chand purchased plot No. 17 in open auction and deposited 1/4th of the total sale price at the spot. The remaining price was to be paid by 11.12.1998. As there was delay in making the payment, the department issued him notice to deposit the balance amount. The petitioner only paid part of the consideration first and later on balance was deposited on 21.6.1997. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, however, held that as the auction purchaser has failed to make payment in time he cancelled the allotment and confiscated the purchase price. The petitioner filed appeal to Divisional Commissioner, who held that though auction price was to be paid by 11.12.1988, yet even after the expiry of 10 years the payment has not been made he dismissed the appeal. Hence the Revision Petition. ii) ROR No. 130 of 2002. 3. The petitioner purchased plot No. 94 in New Anaj Mandi Sirhind for a consideration of Rs. 97,000/- and paid 1/4th of the auction price at the spot. The balance was to be paid by 11.12.1998. As there was delay in making the payment, he was directed by the department to deposit the pending amount urgently. Finally last opportunity was granted to him make payment by 8.9.1998. As the petitioner failed to make the payment, the Administrator cancelled the allotment and confiscated the balance amount to the State. The petitioner filed appeal to Divisional Commissioner, however the same was also dismissed. Hence the revision appeal. 4. I have examined the arguments advanced and have also perused the file. The petitioner has stressed that both the officers that is the Divisional Commissioner and as well as the Administrator have not appreciated and considered the full facts of the case. There is no mention about the payment already received in any of the impugned orders. There is also no reference to the due amount outstanding against the petitioner. It has been specifically argued that during the year 1997 the petitioner deposited the complete sale price of Rs. 1,55,000/-. There is no mention about the payment already received in any of the impugned orders. There is also no reference to the due amount outstanding against the petitioner. It has been specifically argued that during the year 1997 the petitioner deposited the complete sale price of Rs. 1,55,000/-. In such a situation it was incumbent on the Administrator to record the facts correctly and as well as to reflect whether any outstanding amount was still due before cancelling the allotments. 5. A careful perusal of both the orders also reveals that the petitioner was in regular touch with the respondents. The Administrator issued notice to the petitioner in the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 and thereafter extended the last date for making payment upto 8.9.1998. The petitioner has also referred to two Demand Drafts whereby he paid the remaining outstanding price, which however were returned by the Administrator. On this contention of the petitioner neither the Administrator nor the Commissioner have given any finding. In fact before cancelling the allotment and passing order of confiscation, it was necessary for both the officers to record their findings about delay and also cite reasons leading to the forfeiture of the balance amount paid by the petitioner. 6. I am thus of the view that when there is neither any reference nor any discussion about the balance amount, the cancellation of plot on that ground and forfeiture of the balance auction price appears to be unjustified. In view of the above discussion, the revision petitions are accepted in limine and the order of the lower court are set-aside. The petitions are remanded to the Administrator New Mandi Township with the direction to re-examine the whole issue allow opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence on the point of payment and to re-decide it afresh. The petitioners are advised to appear before the Administrator on 25th Nov. 2003. A copy of this order be placed on both the flies for record. Order accordingly.