SAROJ GARG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Saroj Garg and others through the present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing orders Annexures P1, P2 and P6 vide which plot bearing No. 204 in Sector 29-D, Chandigarh purchased "by the petitioners in auction was resumed by the Estate Officer vide his order dated 16. 9. 1978 which was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities.

(2.) THE facts on which the relief aforesaid rests reveal that the petitioners purchased the plot in question in Court auction held on 8. 1. 1988. This was in pursuance to a decree that was in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank and in execution thereof, the petitioners being the highest bidders were successful in purchasing the same. The Bank had instituted a suit against M/s Mohan Steel Indusries which was initially under the name and style of M/s Khalsa Iron Store. The original allottee of the plot aforesaid was M/s Khalsa Iron Store through its partner Shri Balkar Singh. The plot was purchased from the Chandigarh Administration through general auction. Inasmuch as M/s Khalsa Iron Store failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period, the plot was resumed by the Estate officer, vide his order dated 16. 9. 1978 and the amount of Rs. 5,820/- being 10% of the premium was forfeited. Aggrieved, the allottee filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator who vide his orders dated 19. 8. 1980 restored the site on the condition that the construction would be completed by the allottee within six months. Still aggrieved, the allottee filed a revision against the orders of the Chief Administrator to the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration Chandigarh. A plea was raised there that the allottee had submitted the drawings to the Estate Officer for sanction but they had taken enough time in completing the formality and to sanction the plan. It requires to be mentioned here that the order of the appellate authority was conditional and on account of non-construction within the stipulated period, the order of the Estate Officer was to be revived. It is for that reason alone, it appears, that the revision was carried against the order of the Appellate Authority. However, revision came up for hearing before the Chief Commissioner Chandigarh on 2. 5. 1985 and the allottee was given time for getting the property transferred in the name of Shri Balkar Singh who had become the sole proprietor of M/s Khalsa Iron Store. The plot in dispute in fact was transferred in the name of M/s Mohan Steel Industries with Balkar Singh as its partner. The plot in question was attached in execution of decree passed against M/s Mohan Steel Industries of which Balkar Singh was the partner. It was ordered to be auctioned by the executing Court in execution No. 62 of 1986. The plot was actually put to auction and the petitioners were declared the highest bidders as their bid of Rs. 3,20,000/- was accepted by the Court auctioneer. As no objections were being filed against the auction held on 8. 1. 1988, the sale in favour of petitioners was confirmed by Sub Judge Chandigarh on 2. 3. 1988. The sale certificate was granted to the petitioners by the Court on 18. 3. 1988 and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar on 18. 3. 1988. Once the petitioners became owners of the property in dispute, they moved an application on 25. 3. 1988 to the Estate Officer Chandigarh for the transfer of the plot aforesaid in their names and it is only then that they came to know that the site purchased by them stood resumed on account of non-construction and that the previous allottee had filed a revision before the Chief Commissioner which was still pending. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioners moved an application before the Chief Commissioner for impleading them as a party to the Revision Petition. However, the Adviser to the Administrator, exercising the powers of Administrator, declined the said prayer of petitioners and considering the case of original allottees on merits, dismissed the revision on 11. 5. 1988. It is this order and earlier orders of resumption which, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, have been sought to be quashed.

(3.) THE cause of the petitioners has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, by way of preliminary objections, it is pleaded that the petitioners have no right to file this petition as they are not bonafide or legal purchasers. It is further pleaded that in consequence of resumption of the plot in question, the ownership of the site vests in the Chandigarh Administration and that being the position, the plot could not be attached or sold by the Court on the basis of Court decree against Mohan Steel Industries Ludhiana.