CHANCHAL NARANG Vs. U T CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP No.18291 of 2012 and CWP No.18307 of 2012 as similar facts and law points are involved in these cases. For convenience, the facts are culled out from CWP No.18291 of 2012. Challenge in this petition filed on 20.5.2012 is to an order dated 17.2.1993 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Estate Officer exercising the powers of Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, cancelling the allotment by way of lease of booth No.227, Sector 38/C & D for default in payment of first, second and third installments which had fallen due on 12.2.1990, 12.2.1991 and 12.2.1992. Sixteen opportunities of hearing were afforded to the petitioner-allottee from 25.9.1990 to 17.2.1993. There was failure to clear outstanding dues. The lease of the site in question was cancelled as a last resort in exercise of powers vested under Rule 12 (3) of the Chandigarh Lease of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 and 10% of the premium of the site amounting to Rs 18,600/- plus ground rent and interest calculated to the date of cancellation was forfeited.

(2.) Aggrieved by the cancellation order, the petitioner carried appeal bearing Appeal No.183 of 1993 before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh under Section 10 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. The Chief Administrator by his order bestowed indulgence on the petitioner as she gave an undertaking that she would clear the outstanding dues with 2% forfeiture on or before 30.10.1994 failing which the order of the Estate Officer would become operative. The appellate order was passed on 30.8.1994. The payments were directed to be made by 30.10.1994. Consequently, by the conditional order, the cancellation/resumption order dated 17.2.1993 was set aside. Instead of complying with the appellate order in terms of the undertaking given, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh taking up the plea that she was a poor widow unable to make the payments after the death of her husband and a lenient view be taken in the matter. The Revisional Authority noticed that the petitioner had not made payment since February 1990 but yet took a lenient view and restored the site subject to the condition that all balance outstanding amounts be paid within one month. The revisional order was passed on 8.2.1996. The petitioner did not still pay the amounts due and therefore, the original order of cancellation of lease became operative and continues to operate till date.

(3.) After 16 years of the revisional order, the present writ petition has been filed.