CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. JOHNSON PAINTS AND VARNISH CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Writ petition No.2677/93, dated November 4 1993. The admitted facts are that the site bearing No. 187-B, Industrial area, Chandigarh was allotted to M/s. Johnson Paints and Varnish Co. for industrial use. The allottee was Kulraj Singh Paul, S/o Sardar Gurbax Singh. The allotment came to be made in the year 1965 at a concessional rate of Rs. 10/- per sq.yd. Default was committed in payment of the instalments. Consequently, the site was resumed on April 26, 1967. On payment with penal amounts prescribed under the rules the property was handed over again to the respondent. Thereafter, since it was not constructed, the property was again resumed in the year 1981. The respondent filed the writ petition, which was dismissed. L. P. A. was also dismissed and when the S. L. P. was filed, this court confirmed the order of dismissal. Thus the entitlement to the allotment became final and the controversy became quiteous.

(3.) Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under rule 11-D of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules 1960 (for Short, the 'Rules'). Rule 11-D(i) envisages that where a site has been resumed under Section 8-A of Act 27 of 1952 for any reason, the Estate Officer may, on an application retransfer the site to the out-going transferee on payment of an amount equal to 10 per cent of the premium originally payable for such property or 1/3rd of the difference between the price originally paid and its value at the time when the application for retransfer is made, whichever is more. The other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case including the proviso which bears relevances provided sub-clause(1) of Rule 11-D is satisfied. Hence they are omitted. The Estate Officer had refused to make retransfer of allotment and the petition was rejected. Consequently, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed directing the appellant to allot the site to the respondent. Thus this appeal by special leave.