HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh dated December 15, 1992, dismissing the Misc. Application No. 78 of 1991-92 filed by the petitioner under Section 15 (3) of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) against the appellate order of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated January 15, 1992, whereby his appeal was. dismissed in limine being barred by time, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner was transferred shop site bearing No. 120, situated in Grain Market, Abohar, he being the highest bidder in open auction held on December 14, 1973. Letter of allotment dated September 27, 1973. Letter of allotment dated September 27,1974 was issued to him. The first instalment of Rs. 9,469,50 in respect of the said site fell due on March 27, 1975. He was served with a registered notice dated September 8, 1975 calling upon him to pay the first instalment with penalty. He did not deposit the instalment. A second show cause notice dated November 11, 1975 was issued calling upon him to deposit Rs. 18,792. 95 failing which the plot would be resumed and the earnest money already deposited would be forfeited. The petitioner did not deposit the money and the shop site was resumed vide order dated May 24, 1976 passed by the Administrator, New Mandi Townships. Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'administrator' ). The petitioner challenged the order dated May 24, 1976 in appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, The appeal was dismissed in limine being barred by time vide order dated January 15, 1992. The appellate order of the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in Misc. Application/petition alleged to have been filed under Section 15 (3) of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. The Financial Commissioner partly accepted the application and directed the Administrator to refund to the petitioner the amount which had been forfeited in excess of the amount which could be legally forfeited. The Administrator has complied with the directions of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) as contained in his order dated December 15, 1992 and refunded a sum of Rs. 8,873-45 to the petitioner through refund voucher dated August 12, 1993. The Administrator took possession of the shop site through Naib Tehsildar Colony, Bathinda on July 9, 1976. Respondents No. 4 and 5 purchased the said shop site from the Administrator after it had been validly resumed and they have raised construction thereon.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act were declared ultra vires by this Court in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, 1978 P. L. J. 396, and as such the resumption order is bad at law as there was no power with the Administrator to resume the shop site.