MAYA DEVI Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were allotted a built-up booth on April 9, 1987 in Sector 17, Chandigarh. Some years later, on July 8, 1992, the lease was cancelled for failure to pay the amount due. After pursuing the departmental remedies, the petitioners approached this Court through CWP No. 14865 of 1995. Vide order dated July 3, 1997, the petition was dismissed. However, the petitioners were given the liberty to "apply for re-allotment of the property under Rule 21-A of the Rules of 1973". These rules are called 'The Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973.'

(2.) THE petitioners submitted an application on July 23, 1997. The Assistant Estate Officers rejected it vide order dated December 12, 1997. A copy of the order is at Annexure P.4. The petitioners filed an appeal. Vide order dated January 20, 1998, the Chief Administrator dismissed this appeal. The petitioners filed a petition before the Adviser. It was dismissed vide order dated June 23, 1999. Copies of the orders passed by the Chief Administrator and the Adviser are at Annexures P.5 and P.6 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They allege that the orders are illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. They pray that these be quashed. In response to the notice of motion, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) WE have perused the order dated December 12, 1997 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer. The petitioners' claim for re-allotment was rejected on the ground that it would mean "giving a handsome benefit to those who have cared a fig for the rules and the terms of allotment which were duly conveyed to them..." Mr. Jain, learned counsel submits that the booth had been allotted to the petitioners at a price of Rs. 5,33,000/- on February 22, 1987. By July 1, 1997, the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs. 13,52,408/-. Despite this, the authority has taken the view that the petitioners were not entitled to the re-allotment of the site. We think the grievance made by the counsel is justified. In fact, it further appears that an order to return an amount of Rs. 3,44,158/- was passed. Thus, an amount of Rs. 10,08,250/- is still being retained by the respondents. And yet, the petitioners' request for re- allotment has been turned down.