RAVINDERPAL SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

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 -l. The allottees had paid 25% of the premium viz. Rs. 57,500/ -. The remaining amount had to be paid in three annual installments 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 installment. 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 Administration held that "the Appellants are not inclined to pay Govt. dues. The ground for passing the cancellation of lease was the non -payment of amount of 2nd installment by the Appellants which fell due on 9.7.87. The third installment of the premium which became due on 9.7.88 has also not been paid". Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Respondents controverting the claim made by the Petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition even an additional affidavit was filed. It was pointed out that in the auction held on December 11,1998 lease -hold rights in a similar site had ben sold for Rs. 16,30,000/ -. Less than three months later, another site in the same sector had been sold for Rs. 24,70,000/ -. On this basis, it has been pointed out that the relief claimed by the Petitioner who had failed to make the payment of the lease money deserved to be declined.