PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. It has been prayed by the petitioners that directions be issued to the respondents to hand over the physical possession of site of S.C.O. No. 23, Sector 41-D Chandigarh. It was also prayed by the petitioners that directions be given to the respondents for re-scheduling the period of payment of premium/instalment from the date of handing over the physical possession and also waiving ground rent and interest etc. till the date on which the actual possession of the site is handed over the petitioners.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- On 22.1.1997 the petitioners gave bid for the purchase of commercial site No. SCO 23, Sector 41-D Chandigarh and they were declared highest bidders at a premium of Rs. 36,00,000/-. They were allotted site vide allotment letter dated 5.5.1997. On the same day a copy of the letter was issued to the Executive Engineer, Capital Project. Division No. 2, Chandigarh for handing over the possession of the site in question. It is stated by the petitioners that on 22.4.1997 they met Assistant Estate Officer personally and submitted an application for removal of mango tree from the site. This was again repeated on 12.2.98 and 27.1.1999. Finding no response on 12.10.2000 the petitioners gave an application to the Estate Officer praying for removal of the mango tree from the site so that construction could be undertaken without any difficulty. Inspite of the verbal and written requests made by the petitioners no action was taken rather a threat was given to them that the site in question would be resumed and penalty would follow in case they did not pay the instalments of the bid amount. On 20.2.2001 the petitioners received a show cause notice from the Estate Officer intimating non-receipt of the Government dues from them and it was threatened that the ex parte proceedings would be taken against them. On 29.3.2001, petitioners again made representation before the authorities for the removal of the mango tree so that site may become vacant for the construction of the building. Grouse of the petitioners is that the authorities did not deliver possession of the site in time. In fact the possession was delivered to the petitioners on 23.7.2001. The petitioners had to make entire payment on account of alleged threat of the authorities before 14.2.2001. The tree was actually removed from the site on 21.4.2001. In short, the case set up by the petitioners is that the possession of the site had been delivered on 23.7.2001 making the site fit for construction. Therefore, from the date of allotment till delivery of possession, ground rent should not be charged. Moreover, the interest which has been charged by the respondent authorities on the bid amount should also be refunded.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record.