OM PARKASH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of civil writ No. 2077 of 1980 directed by Om Parkash owner of godown site No. 180, Grain Market, Chandigarh, against the order of its resumption and writ petition No. 6928 of 1986 preferred by Nohria Ram and another the alleged tenants of a portion the godown site in dispute as the controversy in both these petitions relates to the same premises.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that on 6-2-1972. Om Parkash petitioner purchased godown site No 180. Grain Market, Chandigarh, in an open auction for a total price of Rs 85,600/ -. Om Parkash paid 25% of the sale consideration. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale the balance amount 75% along with interest accruing thereon was to be paid in three equated yearly instalments, the first instalment being payable on 6-2-1973, the second instalment being payable in 6-2-1974 and third instilment on 6-2-1975. The petitioner constructed a building on the site in question after spending about Rs. one lac. The petitioner failed to pay the first two instalments due to financial stringency, which resulted in the resumption of the site in dispute vide order Annexure P-1 dated 11-2-1975 passed by the Estate Officer, under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952, (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Estate Officer also forfeited 10% of the price of the site in question. Om Parkash petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, under Section 10 (1) of the Act, which was disposed of vide order Annexure P-2, dated 1-9-1975, directing the restoration of the site in question to the petitioner subject to the condition that the entile amount towards the price and interest due was to be paid by the petitioner by 31-10-1975 The amount of forfeiture was reduced to Rs. 200/- only. It was further directed that if the petitioner failed to make payment of the entire amount within stipulated period, the order of the resumption of the site in dispute of the Estate Officer shall stand Om Parkash, however, failed to deposit this amount due to financial hardship within stipulated period and resorted to filing of a revision petition under Section 10 (4) of the Act, before the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. This revision petition was, however, rejected by the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, tide order dated 20-12-1979. The possession of the godown site and building thereon was taken by the Estate Officer. Subsequently, Om Parkash petitioner managed to arrange funds and vide letter dated 14-5-1980 Annexure P-3, sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- Annexure P-4, drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh, towards the payment of instalments to the Estate Officer, with a request that he should be intimated about the balance amount outstanding, so that the same may be deposited, with a view to secure possession of the site. On getting no response from the Estate Officer, about the receipt of the said draft or regarding the balance amount outstanding against the petitioner, the latter again sent a reminder dated 7. 6. 1980. Annexure P-5 to the Estate Officer. Ultimately, Om Parkash petitioner resorted to the filing of the present writ petition on 17. 6. 1980 when he failed to get any response from the Estate Officer, contending that it was incumbent upon the Estate Officer to account for the sum of Rs 70,000/ already paid by him through the demand draft Annexure P-4 and also to let the petitioner know the balance price along with the interest, which is payable by the latter. The petitioner further avers that the respondents are bound to release the godown site and the building raised thereon from resumption on payment of full amount and the interest thereon besides the amount of forfeiture and that since the respondents have failed to discharge the statutory obligation, under the circumstances a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ was sought to be issued to them to receive the balance amount of instalments alongwith interest towards the price of the godown site, from the petitioner, after accounting for the forfeiture part of the price thereof, as ordered by the Estate Officer vide his order dated 11. 2 1975 Annexure P-1, and subsequently modified by the Chief Administrator vide order Annexure P-2, dated 1. 9. 1975.

(3.) THE respondents contested this writ petition by filing a reply on 20. 7. 1982. inter alia maintaining that the resumption order of the site in dispute was rightly ordered by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, when Om Parkash petitioner failed to pay any of the instalments and further that the petitioner did not comply with the order of the Chief Administrator Chandigarh, by depositing the amount of sale consideration of the plot and the amount of forfeiture within stipulated period. It was also maintained that the Chief Commissioner, Chardigarh Administration, while rejecting the revision petition had allowed the petitioner to avail the benefit of Rule 11-D of the Capital of Punjab (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which allows the petitioner to repurchase the building on very easy terms Regarding tendering of the draft Annexure P-4, for a sum of Rs. 70,000/, it was maintained that this tender was of no consequence as the site had already been resumed and the only remedy available to the petitioner was to re purchase the site in question under Rule 11-B of the Rules. The petitioner can, however, ask for the refund of this amount.