ASSISTANT ESTATE OFFICER Vs. ANITA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are directed against the two orders passed by the Advisor to the Administrator. By these orders the two revision petitions filed by the petitioner have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The counsel states that the issue is common. Thus, both the writ petitions can be disposed of by one order. The counsel has referred to facts as disclosed in Civil Writ Petition No. 11182 of 2000 (The Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh v. Smt. Anita Arora and another). These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) ON November 19, 1997 the Administration conducted auction for the sale of a residential plot measuring 253.50 square yards. It was sold to respondent No. 1 for a price of Rs. 32,25,000/-. The said respondent paid 25 per cent of the price, viz. Rs. 8,06,250/-, within the prescribed period. Thereafter, on January 18, 1998 the letter of allotment was issued in her favour. The remaining amount of money had to be paid in yearly instalments. The first instalment was to be due on November 19, 1998. On May 18, 1998 the first respondent submitted an application for permission to surrender the plot. She also prayed for the refund of the amount deposited by her. Vide communication dated June 5, 1998, the first respondent was called upon to show cause as to why the "whole/part of the premium and ground rent paid" by not forfeited. She submitted a reply. The Estate Officer vide order dated June 24, 1998 cancelled the lease and ordered forfeiture of 10 per cent of the sale price, viz. Rs. 3,22,500/-. He also ordered that interest and ground rent shall be recovered. The respondent appealed against the order. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal. A copy of the order has been produced by the counsel at the hearing. It is taken on record as Mark 'A'. By this order, forfeiture of 2 per cent was ordered. The remaining directions regarding payment of ground rent and interest also were set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated October 12, 1999, passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Adviser to the Administrator. On January 12, 2000 the Administrator dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It prays that the order passed by the Revisional Authority be quashed.

(3.) WHAT were the circumstances ? Why had the delay occurred ? What were the reasons given for condonation ? Nothing has been placed on record. It has not even been shown that an application for condonation of delay had been filed.