JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral):- The petitioner company, in an open auction held on 05.03.1999, was allotted a site, i.e., SCO No.45-46, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, for a consideration of Rs.1,41,00,000/- on lease hold basis for 99 years, vide allotment letter dated 18.03.1999 (Annexure P2). In addition to the terms and conditions of the said allotment letter, the allotment is governed by the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’) and the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Rules’). 2. As per provisions contained in Rule 14(1) of the 1973 Rules, the lessee is bound to execute a lease deed after payment of 25% of the premium and, in case of failure to execute the lease deed, the lessee may attract the penalty, as per provision contained in Rule 14(2) of the 1973 Rules, which provides that if the lessee fails to execute the lease deed in accordance with the Rule 14(1) of the 1973 Rules, the Estate Officer may cancel the lease and forfeit a sum upto 25% of the premium. 3. It is admitted position between the parties that the petitioner- Company paid all the dues within the stipulated time, including the ground rent. But the petitioner, however, could not execute the lease deed within the time prescribed, as, according to the petitioner, it was not aware of this condition. Due to the failure to execute the lease deed, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and ultimately the Estate Officer, vide order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P3), cancelled the lease of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground and ordered forfeiture of 25% of the premium of the said site. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure P-5), the said appeal was allowed and the order of cancellation of lease was set aside ordering forfeiture of 10% of the premium of the said site, as provided under Section 8(A) of the 1952 Act, while observing as under :- “.....After hearing both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that since all the payments etc. have been made in time and in similar cases, the relief has been given in execution of lease deed, in the instant case also, resumption order passed by the LAO is set aside. However, the appellants are directed to execute the lease deed within 60 days from the date the copy of the order is received. It is further ordered that forfeiture amount as prescribed under rules shall be deposited by the lessee(s) prior to execution of the lease deed which will be equivalent to 10% as provided under Section 8(A) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.” 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the portion of the said order, i.e., with regard to forfeiture of 10% premium, filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. Vide order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P7), the said revision was dismissed by the revisional authority. However, two months’ time granted by the appellate authority to execute the lease, was further extended by two months reckonable from the date of despatch of the said order. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the part of the order of the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, the petitioner filed the instant petition. 7. While issuing notice of motion the petitioner-Company was permitted to deposit 7% of the consideration money and then execute the lease deed within the prescribed time. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court, it has not been disputed that in terms of the allotment letter, except execution of the lease deed, the petitioner had complied with other conditions and had made all the payments, including the ground rent etc., within the stipulated time. The only lacking on the part of the petitioner was that he did not execute the lease deed in terms of the allotment letter and as per provisions of Section 14(1) of the 1973 Rules, within the stipulated time. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the appellate authority has set aside, the order of cancellation of lease while accepting the reasons for not executing the lease within the stipulated time, no forfeiture of the premium of the lease amount could be ordered. He contends that the order of setting aside the cancellation of lease and forfeiture cannot be passed, simultaneously. He contends that the order of setting aside the cancellation of lease and forfeiture cannot be passed, simultaneously. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner relied upon three decisions of this Court, namely, M/s Goyal and Company Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1992(2) P.L.R., 303, a Division Bench judgment in the case titled as H.S.Virdi Vs. Estate Officer, P.L.R. (2002-3), 815 and Smt. Satwant Kaur and another Vs. Chandigarh Administration and others (CWP No.2938 of 2010 decided on 10.03.2011). 10. We have gone through the aforesaid three judgments, which have been annexed with the petition. In these judgments, it has been clearly laid down that once the order of cancellation/resumption of the site is set aside then no order of forfeiture of the premium can be passed. It has been held that cancellation of lease and forfeiture of the premium must go, simultaneously. In case, there is no cancellation of the lease, the question of forfeiture would not arise. Even if the Estate Officer has to cancel the lease, a discretion is left with him to either forfeit or not to forfeit the whole or part of the amount paid as a premium. Once the order of cancellation of lease is set aside by accepting the reasons given by the allottee then no forfeiture of any amount can be ordered against him. 11. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the aforesaid legal position or cite any contrary judgments. 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the order passed by the appellate authority holding forfeiture of 10% of the premium and the order passed by the revisional authority affirming the said order, are not sustainable. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, with regard to the forfeiture of 10% of the premium, are hereby set aside. 13. We have been informed that in terms of the interim order on payment of 7% the lease deed has already been executed, therefore, we direct the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner in terms of the interim order dated 13.02.2013, within a period of three months. ---------0.B.S.0------------