NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE advertisement Ex.P -1 which appeared in the issue of Tribune dated January 2, 1983 commercial site Nos. 87 & 88 measuring 33'.3" x 66'.00" situated in Sector 59 Phase -V, SAS Nagar, Mohali for atta chakki was advertised to be put to sale through open auction on free hold basis to be held at 11.00 A.M. on 9.1.1983 in front of the office of the Director, Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab SCO No. 2453 -54, Sector 22 -C, Chandigarh. It was shown as I site as distinguished from 2 sites for atta chakki in columns No. 4 and 5 of the advertisement under the heads" category and total No. of sites" respectively. Plaintiffs -Nirmal Singh, Smt. Balwant Kaur and Parvinder Singh had been running atta chakki for the last so many years. They gave bid for the site of atta chakki was put to auction. Auction took place on 9.1.1983. They were the highest bidders. Their bid was for Rs. 4,57,500/ -. -They deposited Rs. 1,14,400/ - as 25% of the auction money at the spot with the Estate Officer who held the auction. They were bidders for plot Nos. 87 & 88 corner for atta chakki which constituted one site. Plots No. 87 and 88 corner were shown as one site measuring 16.6" x 66.00" and 16.9", Prior to 9.1.1983 i.e. when notification for issuing publication for auction was issued, a joint meeting comprising the Chief Town Planner. The Chief Architect, the Director and the other concerned Officers was held which was presided over by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Housing and Urban Development Department at which the area, site, actual measurements the sector/phase were decided and without the approval of the same signatories no amendment or change in the area of the site could be effected. Plaintiffs gave bid assuming that SCF/Plot Nos. 87 & 88 was one site for atta chakki, as atta chakki, cannot be installed in an area measuring less than 33'x66', while signing the bid sheet they did not care to see that in the bid sheet, bid was shown relating to plot No. 88 only and it did not relate to plot Nos. 87 and 88 as indicated in the advertisement. Bid sheet signed by them considering that atta chakki site comprising plot Nos. 87 and 88 had been auctioned to them as one site. After sometime, they received allotment letter of atta chakki site in which only plot No. 88 was mentioned and not plot No. 87. They contacted Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar, Mohali. They were assured that after due enquiry, they would issue revised allotment letter in which plot No. 87 would also be mentioned. They were also told that they should accept the possession of plot No. 88 at the moment so that allotment was not cancelled and also they could start their business. In the meantime, Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar, Mohali started preparing to hold auction for SCF No. 87 declaring it as for "general trade". Plot or site once reserved for a particular purpose namely installation of atta chakki and put for auction for that purpose could not be withdrawn particularly when atta chakki could not be installed on an area less than 33'x66'. As they did not want to enter into any controversy with the defendants, they told the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar, Mohali that Plot No. 87 be also allotted to them at Govt. reserved price which was about Rs. 58,000/ - at that time. They raised some temporary structure over the site of SCF No. 88 and installed a part of atta chakki. They submitted a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - on 4.4.1986 towards part payment of the remaining instalments which was returned. To their surprise, even plot No. 88 was resumed vide order dated 2.4.1986 on the ground of non -payment of instalments which had fallen due and were likely to fall due on 9.1.1986 and 9.1.1987. They preferred appeal against the order dated 2.4.1986 to the Chief Administrator, Urban Estates, Punjab, who set aside the order of resumption of plot SCF No. 88 -C, Phase -V, Mohali vide order dated 4.6.1996 and ordered that they will deposit the amount with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 10% in lump sum within 20 days. They filed revision to Govt. Punjab, Housing and Urban Development fault with the order of resumption but allowed them to make the payment of over due instalments together with interest including penal interest thereon as per order of the Chief Administrator within 30 days of the date of communication of this order. The amount of over -due instalments and interest upto 10.9.1992 was worked out by the Estate Officer to the tune of Rs. 7,66,171/ -. If they fail to deposit this amount within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the impugned order of resumption was to become operative. He further ordered that though they (plaintiffs) had no legal claim to the site of SCF No. 87, he gave them option to purchase site of SCF No. 87, Phase -V, Mohali if it is available, but at the price of SCF No. 88 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from the date of auction of site No. 88 till the date of payment. Alternatively, they shall be at liberty to surrender the site of SCF No. 88, Phase -V and get the refund of their money. They were allowed to communicate their option within 30 days of the date of communication of the order dated 10.9.1992. If they opt to purchase the site of SCF No. 87, Estate Officer, Mohali shall communicate the amount payable within 15 days of the receipt of the option so communicated within 30 days of the date of receipt of intimation from the Estate Officer. In case they fail either to exercise their option or to deposit the amount payable in respect of SCF No. 88 or SCF No. 87 within the period specified above, this option shall stand withdrawn. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration whereby they have challenged the order dated 2.4.1986 of the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, order dated 4.6.1990 of the Chief Administrator, Urban Estate Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the order dated 10.9.1992 of the Secretary to Govt. Punjab Housing and Urban Development Department vide which SCF No. 88, Phase -V was resumed as being illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, against the statutes and the principles of natural justice and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from resuming plot No. 88 ibid and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot plot SCF No. 87, Phase -V, SAS Nagar, Mohali to the without any price or at any other price as deemed fit by the Court not to put plot No. 87 to auction.

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that only plot No. 88 was given to the plaintiffs in open auction. Plaintiffs do not have any right whatever so far as plot No. 87 is concerned. They gave bid for plot No. 88. Under no circumstances, they could lay claim to plot No. 87. In the allotment letter issued to the plaintiffs on 31.11.1983, area of the plot which was allotted to them was duly mentioned. It was only plot No. 88 -C, Phase -V, which was put to auction as they were the highest bidders. Atta chakki was working in plot No. 88 and plot No. 87 was lying vacant. It was denied that atta chakki could not be installed in an area less than 33'x66'. Resumption of plot SCF No. 88 took place because the plaintiffs did not deposit any instalment as mentioned in the allotment letter for the last 9 years. As the terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment letter were not complied with, there was no other alternative except to resume the plot which was resumed on 2,4.1986. Appeal was allowed by the Chief Administrator, who allowed the plaintiffs to deposit the amount due with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 10% per annum in lump sum and in case they failed to do so, the order of resumption shall stand. In revision, they were ordered to pay Rs. 7,66,171/ - qua the instalments which had become overdue in respect of plot/SCF No. 88. In respect of plot/SCF No. 87, they were given option to purchase it if it is available at the price of SGF No. 88 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from the date of auction of site of plot SCF No. 88 till the date of payment. Alternatively they were also allowed option to surrender the site of SCF No. 88 -C and obtain refund of their money. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(3.) WHETHER the suit of the plaintiff is barred Under Section 20 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964? OPD