RAVINDERPAL SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the Advisor to the Administrator erred in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of delay? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The lease hold rights of Site No. 302, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, were auctioned on July 9, 1985. The petitioner and his mother gave a bid of Rs. 2,30,000/-. This bid was accepted. On August 4, 1985 the letter of allotment was issued in favour of the petitioner and his mother (who has since expired). A copy of this letter has been produced on record as Annexure P-1. The allottees had paid 25% of the premium viz. Rs. 57,500/-. The remaining amount had to be paid in three annual instalments of Rs. 65,731.15 P. each. The petitioner and his mother had also to pay the ground rent of Rs. 5,750/- per year. They paid the first instalment. However, they did not pay the second instalment which had fallen due on July 9, 1987. The Estate Officer initiated proceedings for the cancellation of the lease. A notice dated November 11, 1988 was served upon the allottee. Thereafter, four opportunities were given. The case was adjourned to December 6, 1988, March 7, 1989, June 13, 1989 and July 4, 1989. Ultimately, vide order dated July 4, 1989 the Estate Officer ordered the cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of a part of the amount which had already been paid. Aggrieved by the order, the two allottees including the present petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 22 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. The allottees were given several opportunities to pay the outstanding amount. It was not paid. Finally, vide order dated April 9, 1990 the Chief Administrator held that "the appellants are not inclined to pay Govt. dues. The ground for passing the cancellation of the lease was the non-payment of amount of 2nd instalment by the appellants which fell due on 9-7-87. The third instalment of the premium which became due on 9-7-88 has also not been paid." Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) After the passing of this order, the present petitioner who was one of the two allottees along with his mother remained quiet till February, 1998. He took no steps to challenge the order passed by the Chief Administrator for a period of more than seven years. The revision petition dated February 10, 1998 was then filed before the Advisor. This petition was dismissed by the authority as it found itself unable to overlook the "delay in filing" the revision petition. He took the view that if such a long delay was condoned, the provisions of the Act and the rules would be rendered totally ineffective. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He prays that the orders dated July 4, 1989, April 9, 1990 and April 25, 1998, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-8 respectively, be quashed.