JASWANT SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jaswant Singh petitioner was allotted a commercial site known as SCF No. 3035-3036, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, on leasehold basis in an open auction held on 28/09/1975, at a premium of Rs. 1,07,000.00. This allotment was done under the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1973'). As per terms and conditions of the allotment 25% of the premium and also the first instalment was paid in time. The second instalment of Rs. 35,579.00 fell due on 28/09/1977, but was paid on 10/10/1977. The Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 proceeded to cancel the lease vide order dated 20/11/1978, by imposing 10% forfeiture of Rs. 10,700.00. Copy of the order is Annexure P-1. An appeal was preferred before the Chief Administrator against the aforesaid order which was accepted on 12/02/1982, (Annexure P-2). The lease of the site was restored. However, the amount of forfeiture was raised from 10% to 25% and the same was to be paid within 30 days. Against the said order a revision was taken to the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 10/10/1988. In the order it was noticed that there was no legal provision regarding forfeiture of 25% of the premium. Further revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 22/03/1991. Copies of these orders are Annexure P.3 and P.4 respectively.

(2.) The Chief Administrator had allowed 30 days time to deposit the amount of forfeiture. The petitioner was informed about this order vide letter dated 4/03/1982 by the Estate Officer to make payment of Rs. 67681.00 within 30 days. On 11/03/1982 the Chief Commissioner in its revisional jurisdiction had stayed operation of order of the Chief Administrator. While disposing of the revision, the Chief Commissioner should have granted fresh time to the petitioner to comply with the order of the Chief Administrator. In spite of that a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 was deposited on 3/02/1989 vide receipt No. 3788 (Annexure P.5). In this manner the petitioner claimed to have paid the entire amount to the Administration. The challenge in this writ petition is to the aforesaid orders of the authorities (Annexures P.1 to P.4).

(3.) The grounds taken up to challenge the aforesaid orders of the authorities primarily are :- i) The authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to order forfeiture of 25% of the premium. ii) That when during the time allowed by the Chief Administrator to deposit the amount of forfeiture the revision had been filed and the Chief Commissioner had ordered stay of the operation of the order, while disposing of the revision petition it was incumbent upon the Chief Administrator to grant time for deposit of the amount due.