AJIT SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESIDENTIAL Plot No. 599 measuring 10 marlas in Phase-1, Mohali was allotted to one Shri Harish Kumar on July 23, 190 by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate Punjab This allotment was made on payment of full price of Rs. 15,225/- by the allottee As per condition No. 14 of the allotment letter the allottee could not transfer the site by way of sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise except by way of lease on monthly basis, save with the sanction of the Chief Administrator till such time as the full sale price of the plot had been paid to the State Government. Shri Harish Kumar applied for permission to the Chief Administrator for transfer of the plot by way of sale to the petitioner herein. The permission was granted and a 'no objection certificate' was issued. Petitioner's said to have purchased the said plot from Shri Harish Kumar for a consideration of Rs. 25 00,0/ -. Thereafter, the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab acting on behalf of the Governor of Punjab executed a conveyance deed for the plot in favour of the Petitioner in September 1980. This conveyance deed is said to have been presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar. Kharar, District Ropar and it is the case of the petitioner that the same was duly registered. The fact that the conveyance deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar has been denied by the respondents for want of knowledge but the execution of the same has been admitted in para 5 of the written statement The Estate Officer later cancelled the allotment and communicated his decision to the petitioner as per his endorsement dated November 28, 1980. Petitioner challenged the order of cancellation by filing civil writ petition No 4571 of 1980 in this Court. On an undertaking given on behalf of the Estate Officer that the order of cancellation stood withdrawn, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and Shri Harish Kumar (original allottee) on 22-3-1982 under Section 11-A of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act' ). Petitioner sen' his reply through his counsel on April 5, 1982. It was pointed out that the Estate Officer had no power to cancel the allotment after the execution of the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the Chief Administrator bad granted permission to the original allottee to transfer the plot in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the Estate Officer kept quiet for sometime and it was in the year 1983 that the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 for delivering possession of the plot. A number of reminders were sent but the petitioner received no reply. It was in the year 1987 when the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 personally, he was informed that the plot in favour of the original allottee had been cancelled under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act on May 25, 1982. It was then that the present writ petition was filed.

(2.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the factual position as stated above has not been controverted but the action in cancelling the plot has been sought to be justified on the basis of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondents that the order of cancellation dated May 25, 1982 was never communicated to the petitioner and from the original file produced before me it has transpired that the said order was addressed to Shri Harish Kumar, the original allottee and even a copy thereof had not been endorsed to the petitioner though the show-cause notice issued in March, 1982 which preceded the order of cancellation had been issued to the petitioner as well.

(3.) IT was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the order of cancellation had never been communicated to him, the same would not become operative as against his rights till such communication and, therefore, the State Government could not exercise the powers of cancellation under Section 11-A of the Act It was also contended that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and the transfer having been permitted by the Chief Administrator and the conveyance deed having been executed, by the department in favour of the petitioner, the allotment could not be cancelled. Since I find merit in the second contention, it is not necessary for me to examine as to when the order of cancellation would operate when the same had never been communicated by the respondents to the petitioner.