ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter here concerns an order of resumption of a lease-hold site and forfeiture of a part of the premium paid in respect thereof, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).

(2.) THE controversy raised being whether the setting aside of an order for resumption by the appellate or revisional authority, merely as a measure of concession and not because it is otherwise invalid, subject to the amount due, in respect of the site concerned, being paid by a specified date, would render invalid the other part of such order, namely that pertaining to upholding of default of payment by the defaulter of the amount of forfeiture too. Rule 12 (3)of the rules reads as under:

(3.) IN the present case at an auction held on March 12, 1988, the petitioner Ashok Kumar was the successful bidder for the residential site 3048 in Sector 38 for a sum of Rs. 3,66,000/ -. The allotment letter was issued to him on May 6, 1988. As per the terms of allotment, the first instalment of the payment in respect of this site was due on March 12, 1989. As it was not paid, a notice was issued to the petitioner on May 1, 1989 to clear the outstanding. This was followed by another notice being issued on February 13, 1990. It was on the failure of the petitioner to pay the amount due that the Estate Officer by his order of June 12, 1990 (Annexure P-2), cancelled the lease of the petitioner, under Rule 12 (3) and also forfeited 10% of the premium alongwith ground rent and interest thereon. This order was challenged in appeal. Before, however, the Chief Administrator took up the appeal for hearing, the matter came up before the Lok Adalat on July 6, 1991. By that time the amount due from the petitioner had gone up to Rs. 4,07,707/ -. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- before the Lok Adalat on that day and undertook to pay the remaining amount by September 30, 1991. It was in this context that when the appeal came up before the Chief Administrator on July 10, 1991, the matter was disposed of by him, in the light of the undertaking given by the petitioner before the Lok Adalat, namely that he would pay the entire amount due by September 30, 1991. The Chief Administrator by his order Annexure P-3 set aside the impugned order of the Estate Officer and ordered the restoration of the site to the petitioner subject to his clearing the entire outstanding amount by September 30, 1991, failing which, of course, it was stated that the order of the Estate Officer would become operative. It was further ordered that in the event of the petitioner making the full payment by the due date, the amount of forfeiture would be reduced to 2% and the penalty imposed on the first instalment, would stand waived.