GIAN CHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two interconnected Revision Petitions under Section 15(3) of Punjab New Mandi Township Development and Regulation Act, 1960 against the orders dated 24.4.2001 in both the cases passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Brief facts of the revision petitions are the following :- i) R.O.R. No. 129 of 2002

(2.) THE Petitioner Shri Gian Chand purchased plot No. 17 in open auction and deposited 1/4th of the total sale price at the spot. The remaining price was to be paid by 11.12.1998. As there was delay in making the payment, the department issued him notice to deposit the balance amount. The petitioner only paid part of the consideration first and later on balance was deposited on 21.6.1997. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, however, held that as the auction purchaser has failed to make payment in time he cancelled the allotment and confiscated the purchase price. The petitioner filed appeal to Divisional Commissioner, who held that though auction price was to be paid by 11.12.1988, yet even after the expiry of 10 years the payment has not been made he dismissed the appeal. Hence the Revision Petition. ii) ROR No. 130 of 2002.

(3.) I have examined the arguments advanced and have also perused the file. The petitioner has stressed that both the officers that is the Divisional Commissioner and as well as the Administrator have not appreciated and considered the full facts of the case. There is no mention about the payment already received in any of the impugned orders. There is also no reference to the due amount outstanding against the petitioner. It has been specifically argued that during the year 1997 the petitioner deposited the complete sale price of Rs. 1,55,000/-. In such a situation it was incumbent on the Administrator to record the facts correctly and as well as to reflect whether any outstanding amount was still due before cancelling the allotments.