BODH RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plot No. 142 in Mandi Sirsa was sold to petitioner Bodh Raj in open auction held on December 12, 1972 in the sum of Rs. 13,000/- by the authorities under the Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (for short called the Act). A sum of Rs. 3250/- being 25% of the total bid money was paid at the fall of hammer and balance of Rs. 9750/- was required to be paid along with interest in three instalments falling due on February 14, 1976. The petitioner failed to pay the amount of instalments on the due dates. Consequently the Administrator, New Mandi Townships, Haryana by order dated September 18, 1978, passed an order after serving notice on the petitioner, resuming the plot along with building thereon on account of non-payment of the amounts of instalments and further imposed a penalty of 10% of consideration money and interest thereon. On appeal, learned Commissioner, Hissar Division Hissar, camp at Sirsa noticed that the petitioner had already raised a building on the plot and it would be harsh to resume the same. Consequently, it was ordered that if the petitioner pays the un-paid instalments, interest and penalty imposed by March 10, 1980, the order of resumption shall be treated as set aside, and in the event of the petitioner not making the payment of the outstanding amount in full on or before March 10, 1980 the order of resumption of plot shall stand. It is the case of the petitioner that he was communicated a wrong date of March 15, 1980 instead of March 10, 1980 and in that impression, he prepared a draft dated March 12, 1980 in the sum of Rs. 10073.15 in favour of the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Haryana in terms of order Annexure P-2 passed by learned Commissioner, Hissar Division. But the said draft was not accepted being beyond March 10, 1980 and was thus, returned to the petitioner on March 25, 1980.

(2.) The request of the petitioner for extension of time was declined by learned Commissioner as also the Financial Commissioner by order Annexures P-4 and P-5. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders Annexurs P-1, P-4 and P-5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State, the only stand taken is that the amount as directed by leaned Commissioner was not paid within the time allowed and that there was no provision to grant extension of time. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. Learned Commissioner had directed the petitioner to deposit all arrears of instalments, interest and penalty imposed by March 10, 1980 whereas the petitioner was informed that the amount was to be deposited by March 15, 1980. From the fact that the petitioner got prepared a draft of Rs. 10073.15 on March 12, 1980 and immediately remitted the same to the authorities in compliance of order passed by learned Commissioner, there is no doubt that he was keen to make the payment as directed. This was the amount due according to the petitioner on that date including all penalties etc. The delay of two days in tendering the amount should not be made to suffer the petitioner, especially when admittedly he has already raised construction over the plot long back and this Court while admitting the writ petition had stayed further proceedings against the petitioner.

(3.) While granting relief to the petitioner, the respondent-State can be compensated for the default of the petitioner by granting interest for the period the instalments remained un-paid. Under the circumstances, I direct the Administrator, New Mandi Townships to work out total amount due from the petitioner as on March 10, 1980, in terms of order passed by learned Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar and intimate the same to the petitioner within one month of the calculations arrived at by him. He will add 12% compound interest on this amount with effect from March 12, 1980 till March 10, 1992. The petitioner who is present in Court undertakes and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,009/- either in cash or through bank draft to the respondent-authorities on or before May 5, 1992 by way of ad hoc arrangement. This amount if fell short of demand worked out by respondent-authorities in the terms indicated above, shall be communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner will be bound to pay the balance amount, if any, within one month thereof and if the amount already tendered by him turned out to be more than the demand, the excess amount shall be refunded. In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the directions or undertaking given in the terms indicated above, this writ petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. It is made clear that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- as indicated above, will be deposited even in the absence of any notice from the respondents.