JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent,1919 questions the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.5.2011 dismissing the writ petition. The facts of the case have been exhaustively stated in the order impugned and we need not traverse them afresh in the present appeal. We would only restate some of the essential facts necessary for determination of this matter.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court, and now the appellant, had challenged an auction notice dated 28.12.2007 (P9) of plot No.1, measuring 200 sq. yards, allotted to the appellant on 3.7.2001 located in a residential scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922 known as the 9.81 acres J.P. Nagar Scheme, Sangrur. It is not disputed that 25 % of the price i.e Rs.1,75,000/- was deposited at the time of allotment. The plot being a corner plot, a further 10 % had to be deposited which was done by paying Rs.18,000/- additionally. The total price fixed for the plot was Rs.7,70,000/-. There was a stipulation in the allotment letter at Clause (13) that if any default is made in payments as per the schedule of payment laid down under Clause (2), that is, total amount upfront within 30 days with no interest or 25 % of the total cost of allotment within 30 days and the remaining amount was made payable in five half yearly monthly installments carrying simple interest at the rate of 12 % per annum; otherwise, there would be resumption. It is not disputed that the schedule of payment was duly notified to the appellant in terms of Clause (4) and it was made known at the outset that in case there was failure to deposit the installments, the remaining amount would carry penal interest at the rate prescribed under the rules. It was also a stipulation that in case the allottee did not pay the installments within six months of their having become due, the Trust was entitled to resume the plot and restoration of plot at that stage would involve all payments due together with penal interest at the rate of 20% and penalty. Since the terms of allotment burdened the allottee to stick to the schedule of payment, it was not made a condition that any notice of non-payment was to be issued. Clause (7) required the building to be constructed on the allotted plot within 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting demarcation and on sanction of building plans approved by the Trust. Clause (13) was the penultimate power that in case of non-payment or non-construction, resumption would follow with confiscation of the deposited amount. The most glaring fact on the face of record is that after initial deposit of 25 %, the appellant did not deposit a penny more than Rs.1 lac, which was deposited by way of draft dated 3.1.2003 on 8.1.2003 with interest. The appellant did not deny that he had received three notices in the months of March, July and December, 2002 where the respondent-Trust specifically called upon the appellant to deposit the installments due along with penal interest. The only reason put forth by the appellant not to carry out his obligation under the terms of allotment was financial difficulty following illness of his father. The last notice from the Trust to the appellant is dated 11.9.2003 (P6). The appellant was informed of his defaults and he was called upon as a last measure to deposit the installments with penal interest and penalty within one week and on failure to do so, the plot would be resumed. For adopting this course, the trust relied upon Section 18 of the Land Disposal Rules, 1964. The appellant did not avail of this last opportunity and on his failure, the trust in its meeting held on 13.10.2003 decided that the plot allotted to the appellant would stand resumed and amount deposited forfeited. The Trust seems to have been rather kind to the appellant in issuing yet another letter dated 22.12.2003 informing him of the decision of the Trust dated 13.10.2003 and that he could now as a last opportunity still deposit the dues by 22.12.2003, otherwise the plot would be put to public auction. Instead of paying the amount, the appellant made a request for waiver of penalty. Thereafter, there was complete silence, till the Trust issued an advertisement dated 28.12.2007 in the Press for auction, that is why the appellant approached this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the auction notice.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant relied upon a Division Bench decision in Sandhya Jindal v. State of Haryana, 1996 114 PunLR 614to contend that even though the power of cancellation and forfeiture of the amount already paid may be administrative in character but to exercise that power, notice and hearing to the allottee would be sine qua non to the validity of the action. On a conspectus of facts, the learned Single Judge found that in the present case there was ample compliance of the principles of natural justice commensurate with the standards laid down in Sandhya Jindal's case supra. The appellant well knew the consequences of non-payment from the beginning. The chain of default in the present case leads to the irresistible conclusion that the learned Single Judge reached that this is not a fit case for interference. Since a barrage of notices, reminders and last opportunities were sent or given to the appellant by the Trust even beyond the call of duty and the time limits prescribed under the rules and the terms of allotment he still failed to avail those opportunities. He has no one to blame but himself.