PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING DEV AUTHORITY Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority 'pupda' for short) allotted Site No. SCF 83 in Mohali in favour of the respondents, on acceptance of their bid of Rs. 15,10,000/- for the said site at an auction held on 10th August, 1994. The letter of allotment dated 29. 5. 1995 took note of payment of Rs. 3,77,500/- (payment of 25% of the price) and permitted the respondents to pay the balance of Rs. 1132500/-towards price and Rs. 283125/- towards interest upto 10. 8. 1998 at 10% per annum, in four equated instalments on 10. 8. 1995, 10. 8. 1996, 10. 8. 1997 and 10. 8. 1998. The letter of allotment required PUPDA to deliver the possession of the site to the allottee within three months.

(2.) THE Estate Officer of PUPDA made an order dated 21. 7. 1997 resuming the site on the ground that the respondents had failed to pay the instalments. The respondents challenged the order of resumption before the appellate Authority contending that they could not pay the instalments, as pupda had not delivered possession of the site. To show their bona fides they sought the permission of the Appellate authority to deposit rs. 1415625/- being the balance of price and interest, in terms of the letter of allotment. On such permission being granted, the respondents deposited the said amount on 16. 8. 2001. The Appellate Authority by order dated 13. 12. 2001 set aside the resumption order and restored the allotment of the site in favour of the respondents and directed the Estate Officer to inform them about the amount of interest/penalty payable in respect of the delayed payments.

(3.) WE find no merit in the contention of the petitioner. The appellate authority had also set aside the cancellation of allotment and had directed restoration of the site to the respondents and that order was not challenged by PUPDA and attained finality. It was respondents who challenged the order of the appellate authority before the revisional authority, being aggrieved by the direction for payment of interest and penalty. We do not propose to interfere with the concurrent finding of the appellate authority, revisional authority and the High Court directing restoration of the site to the respondents.