KANWALJIT SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice Annexure P1 dated 14th August, 1991 issued by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh) under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short, 'the Rules'); the orders Annexure P2 dated 24th June, 1992 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer; Annexure P5 dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh under the Rules for resumption of the site and payment of dues of instalments, ground rent, penalty etc. He has also prayed for quashing of the order Annexure P3 dated 18th September, 1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the 1971 Act') and the appellate order Annexure P4 dated 16th January, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and others were allotted SCO site Nos. 487-88, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh at a premium of Rs. 50,11,000/- in an open auction held on 25th February, 1990 subject to the conditions embodied in the allotment letter dated 19th March, 1990. By virtue of clause 4 of the allotment letter, the amount already deposited by the petitioner was adjusted against 25% of the premium and in terms of clause 5, he was required to pay the remaining 75% in three equated instalments with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with an option to pay the entire amount without interest within a period of 30 days. The petitioner did not opt for lumpsum payment of balance price and, therefore, he was required to pay the remaining amount in three instalments with interest at the stipulated rate. The petitioner took possession of the site, raised construction over it and leased out portions of the building to different tenants, but did not pay first instalments which fell due on 25th February, 1991. This led to the initiation of proceedings under Rule 12 of the Rules. After issuing notice Annexure P1, the Assistant Estate Officer passed the order for resumption of the site and forfeiture of part of the premium The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh did not disturb the findings recorded by the Assistant Estate Officer on the issue of default in the payment of instalments of price and the grounds rent together with interest, but he accepted the petitioner's prayer for grant of an opportunity to pay the outstanding dues and restored the site subject to the condition of payment of the outstanding amount along with 10% forfeiture. The operative part of the appellate order dated 2nd March 1995 reads as under :-

(3.) The petitioner did not deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 2nd March, 1995. Instead, he challenged the same by filing revision petition under section 10(4) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 22 of the Rules. During the course of arguments before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, the counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that this client was ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount and sought reasonable time for this purpose. The Revisional Authority accepted his prayer and passed the order dated 17th May, 1995, the operative portion of which reads as under :-