Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 507 (PNJ)

Roshan Lal v. Financial Commissioner Punjab

2023-02-02

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, VIKRAM AGGARWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT Vikram Aggarwal, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 15(3) of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development & Regulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal and order dated 15.09.1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, vide which S.C.F. Plot No.6, situated in New Grain Market, Panni Wala Fatta (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute') was resumed and 10% of the consideration money was forfeited. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to restore the allotment of the plot in dispute after receipt of the entire sale consideration alongwith interest and thereafter to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners, who are real brothers were jointly allotted the plot in dispute in an open auction held on 09.02.1979 for a sum of Rs. 16,000/-. Rs.4,000/- had been initially deposited as earnest money. The balance sale consideration was to be deposited in installments. Allotment letter dated 25.06.1979 was issued (Annexure P-1) (colly). After paying the first installment of Rs.2,000/- alongwith interest, the petitioners did not pay the remaining amount under the impression (as averred) that the same had to be paid as and when demanded by the respondents. The petitioners claimed that the basic amenities were also not provided, as a result of which also, the balance installments could not be paid. Ultimately, the plot was resumed vide order dated 15.09.1998 (Annexure P-4) under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1960. 10% of the bid money was also forfeited. 3. The petitioners claimed that the order of resumption was not served upon them as a result of which they could not file an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. In December 2014, when respondent No.3 issued a public notice of auction which included the plot in dispute, the petitioners came to know about the order of resumption. An appeal was immediately preferred on 15.12.2014. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-7). A revision petition was also preferred which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-9). 4. An appeal was immediately preferred on 15.12.2014. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-7). A revision petition was also preferred which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-9). 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had always been willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the same was not paid because no demand was raised by the respondents. It has also been claimed that on account of non-providing of basic amenities, the balance sale consideration could not be paid. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the impugned orders are discriminatory as in similarly situated circumstances, the plots of certain other persons had been restored. Reliance has been placed upon certain orders dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure P-11) (colly). 6. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. The basic stand taken in the written statement is the non-payment of balance sale consideration and delay. It has been averred that after the allotment in 1979, the details of installments were intimated to the petitioners vide letter dated 10.09.1979 and the entire amount had to be deposited upto 25.06.1982 but the same had not been deposited even till the filing of the writ petition. Various letters were written but the petitioners did not deposit the amount nor did they disclose the reasons for non-payment of the same. An opportunity of hearing was also granted to the petitioners vide letter dated 08.07.1986 but still no amount was deposited and in fact they did not appear before the authorities concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the respondents in resuming the plot in dispute and, thereafter, in dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners is discriminatory. Reliance has been placed upon the order Annexure P-10 (colly) vide which the Financial Commissioner to the Govt, of Punjab had allowed the revision petitions filed by certain similarly situated allottees. It has been submitted that the petitioners should also have been treated in the same manner as they had paid a substantial amount of the total sale consideration and had always been ready to pay the balance sale consideration. 8. It has been submitted that the petitioners should also have been treated in the same manner as they had paid a substantial amount of the total sale consideration and had always been ready to pay the balance sale consideration. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State of Punjab has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and that the conduct of the petitioners does not entitle them to any relief. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel. 10. The petitioners participated in an auction held on 09.02.1979 and were successful in the allotment of an S.C.F. Plot situated at Panni Wala Fatta (Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab). The total sale consideration, as per the allotment letter dated 25.06.1979 (Annexure P-1) which is also on record as Annexure R-3/1) was Rs. 16,000/-. Rs.4,000/- had been paid as earnest money. The balance amount of Rs.12,000/- was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the allotment letter without interest or in three-yearly installments with interest at the rate of 6% per annum accruing from the date of issuance of the letter of allotment. Clause 6 of the allotment letter, lays down as under:- "6. You are requested to please remit a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on account of 75 percent balance sale price, either within 30 days of receipt of the allotment letter without interest or in three-yearly instalments together with interest at 6 per cent per annum accruing from the date of issue of this letter. The first instalment shall be payable at the expiry of one year/six months from the issue of this letter. In case of non-payment of any instalment on or before the due date, you will render yourself liable to pay a penalty which may extent up to 10 per cent in accordance with rule 8 of the New Mandi Township Rules, 1960. " 11. Clause 20 of the allotment letter provided for resumption of the property in case of failure to comply with any of the conditions laid down in the allotment letter. The same reads as under:- "20. " 11. Clause 20 of the allotment letter provided for resumption of the property in case of failure to comply with any of the conditions laid down in the allotment letter. The same reads as under:- "20. Should any transferee fail to observe or comply with any of the foregoing conditions or fail to construct the plot within time specified the plot will be resumed and his deposit shall be forfeited to the State Government which may have the property resold by public auction. Any deficiency of price which may result on such resale shall be made good and paid by the defaulting purchaser. " 12. The schedule of payment was also conveyed to the petitioners vide communication dated 10.09.1979 (Annexure R-3/2), as per which, six instalments of Rs.2360/- each (Rs.2,000/- principal and Rs.360/- interest) were due starting from 25.12.1979 and ending on 25.06.1982. Admittedly, after payment of Rs.4,000/- as earnest money, only the first installment of Rs.2,000 was paid and the balance installments were not paid. The stand of the petitioners that they were under the impression that the same were payable only when demanded by the respondents, is not acceptable in view of the communication Annexure R-3/2 and the conditions laid down in the letter of allotment. It has been averred in the written statement that even reminders were issued to the petitioners and opportunity of hearings were also granted to them after which the resumption order was finally passed on 15.09.1998 i.e. almost 20 years after the allotment of the plot in dispute. The matter does not end here. The appeal was filed in December 2014 i.e. 16 years after the order of resumption having been passed. Here again, the stand of the petitioners that they did not come to know of the order of resumption, is not acceptable. Assuming that the petitioners had not received the order, it is quite strange that they did not bother to check up as to what had happened to their plot, which had been allotted in the year 1979 and, thereafter, they had not raised any construction on it nor had they started any business therein. The appellate authority, therefore, did not commit any illegality in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. Similarly, the revisional authority also did not commit any illegality in dismissing the revision petition. 13. The appellate authority, therefore, did not commit any illegality in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. Similarly, the revisional authority also did not commit any illegality in dismissing the revision petition. 13. The contention that the action of the respondents is discriminatory as similarly situated persons were granted relief vide order dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure P-11) (colly) is also devoid of merit. A perusal of the order shows that no doubt there also the plots were resumed in 1998. However, after resumption of the plots, the appeals were filed in 2010. They were dismissed not only on limitation but also on merits. Immediately thereafter, revision petitions were filed, which were allowed vide order dated 27.08.2013. These orders also do not give strong reasons for accepting the revision petitions. However, those cases are even otherwise distinguishable from the present case. The delay in the present case is inordinate. After the resumption of the plot in dispute on 15.09.1998, the appeal was preferred in December 2014. It appears that the appeal was filed only after the petitioners came to know about the orders dated 27.08.2013. In fact, the appeals were filed even more than one year thereafter. The petitioners cannot, therefore, claim parity with those allottees. A line has to be drawn somewhere and no one can be permitted to abuse and misuse the process of law in this manner. Limitations have been provided for a reason and condonation is permissible only where a sufficient cause is shown. The petitioners miserably failed to show any sufficient case for the inordinate delay and were, therefore, rightly non-suited. We do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed in revision or in the appeal. In the view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and same is hereby dismissed.