HARJINDER SINGH SAGGU Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of an order of resumption of a property over which a cinema theater complex has been put up by the petitioner is the subject that falls for consideration in the writ petition.

(2.) At an auction held on 16.08.1982, the petitioner had bid for the higher price for Rs. 10 lakhs for a size of plot measuring 270 x 195 square feet and an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which had been paid as earnest had been adjusted towards the amount payable and the balance of Rs. 2,75,000/- was required to be paid within 30 days of the letter of allotment or 6 half yearly instalments together with interest at 6% per annum accruing from the date of issue of the allotment letter. One of the clauses in the auction notice provided for an additional penalty of 10% for non-payment of any instalment that fell due on or before the date. Clause 12 of the auction notice provided that the allottee should complete the building within a period of two years from the date of the issue of the allotment letter and that the time limit could be extended for a period not exceeding 6 months by the Administrator if he was satisfied that the failure to complete the building was due to reasons beyond the control of the individual. Clause 20 is most crucial, which is what gives rise to the cause for this action and, therefore, requires to be reproduced verbatim:

(3.) That the petitioner had taken possession of the plot and that he had completed the construction within the stipulated period, is not in dispute. The petitioner, who had opted to make the payment in instalments, however, failed to do so and there had been repeated notices at various intervals. Some of the notable dates are that the possession was given on 01.09.1982, the allotment letter was issued on 16.08.1982 and the 1st notice under Section 13(1) of the 1960 Act was issued on 30.05.1983. The 2nd notice was issued on 23.02.1983 and in the meanwhile, 2nd and 3rd instalments had already fallen due. Yet another notice was issued on 15.05.1985 imposing a penalty as provided under Section 13(2) and consequently a notice under Section 13(3) on 23.01.1986 calling upon the petitioner to pay all the instalments i.e. 1 to 6 which had fallen due at that time. The petitioner was put on notice of resumption and forfeiture and, therefore, as a final step towards resumption, a show cause notice was issued and it was set down for hearing on 05.05.1986. The petitioner sought for an extension which was turned down and the hearing was adjourned to 05.06.1986. Three more instances had been given and the last notice for the hearing date was on 25.12.1987, when the Administrator ultimately passed an order of resumption finding that the petitioner had persistent in default and the resumption therefore became inevitable as provided under the terms of the auction notice, the source of power however being the New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act of 1960.