NAVDEEP KAUR SANDHU Vs. ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE primary controversy raised in this writ petition is about the penalty of forfeiture at 10% and the interest charged.

(2.) SHOP -cum-Office No. 66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh was put to auction on lease-hold basis on July 17, 1977 under the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') read with Chandigarh Lease-hold of sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 (For short 'the Rules' ). Petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 turned out to be the highest bidders. Their offer of Rs. 6,90,000/- was accepted. The petitioners paid 25% of the premium at the spot. The balance was to be paid in three equated yearly instalments alongwith ground rent; The Petitioners failed to pay the first instalment and consequently proceedings for resumption of the site were taken. The site was initially resumed in the year 1979 on failure of petitioners to pay the instalments on the due dates, but the order was recalled. The petitioners even thereafter did not make payment of the instalments due. Proceedings were/ therefore, initiated under rule 12 (3) of the Rules and the order of resumption Annexure P-2 was passed. In addition, penalty of forfeiture at 10% of premium was also ordered. On appeal, order of resumption was set aside but the order qua forfeiture was upheld. Revision taken against the appellate order was dismissed. The petitioners seek quashing of these orders in this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 2 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) (Service of Notice) Rules, 1974 provides that a notice required to be served upon any person under any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, shall, if practicable, be served personally on the persons to whom it is addressed, or failing him, his recognised agent or any adult member of his family residing with him. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before passing the order of resumption Annexure P-2, a notice was required to be served on the lessees and in the absence of notice which ought to have been served on the petitioners personally and in their absence on their recognised agent or any adult member of the family residing with them, the order of resumption would be illegal and void. It was submitted that in this case ho notice whatsoever was served on any of the petitioners or proforma respondents before order Annexure P-2 was passed. In support of his above submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Harnam Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1994-2) 102 P. L. R. 481 Haryana Rent Reporter, 426 to contend that where an allottee was not provided any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of resumption, the same cannot be sustained. Before passing an order of resumption, a notice is required to be served on the lessee as required by sub-rule (3) of rule 12 of the Rules which has not been done. The contention of the learned counsel, in my view, has no merit. A notice dated March 26, 1982 under rule 12 (3) of the Rules was sent through registered post to the lessees requiring them to show cause either personally or through an authorised agent on April 12, 1982. It seems that none of the lessees turned up. Another registered A. D. notice dated April 1, 1982 was issued, again requiring the lessees to appear on May 5, 1982 at 11 A. M. It was also intimated. that in case the petitioners failed to appear, ex parte proceedings will be initiated against them. Since the petitioners did not put in appearance, it was on this date, order Annexure P-2 was passed resuming the site and imposing penalty of 10% by way of forfeiture. The original file in that behalf was produced before me. It could not be shown that the notices were sent at wrong address. The file also did not show that the same were received back undelivered. Presumption, in my view, can fairly be drawn that the notices reached the addressees. This apart, the petitioners filed an appeal against the order, Annexure P-2 and specifically raised this contention before the appellate authority. It was rebutted by the official respondents. However, during the course of hearing before the appellate authority, the petitioners stated that bulk of the amount of the instalments had already been paid after cancellation of lease and undertook to make payment of the balance amount in case the resumption order was set aside. Having regard to this offers the appellate authority gave a chance to the petitioners to make payment of the arrears outstanding against them, especially having regard to the fact that a building had been erected in the meantime, restored the lease of the site on the said condition but allowed the forfeiture to stand. A reading of this order goes to show that for the concession shown by the appellate authority the point of non-service of notice was not pressed any further. Still not satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh and in the revision, though various grounds were taken yet only two points were pressed, namely, the imposition of penalty by way of 10% forfeiture was not desirable and that compound interest was denied and the learned Advisor after considering the matter and on perusing the record came to the conclusion that the petitioners had been afforded proper opportunity by the Estate Officer as also by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh while passing the impugned orders and dismissed the revision in that behalf. As regards compound interest, it was however, ordered that the Estate Officer shall settle the accounts in the presence of the petitioners with a view to satisfy them that compound interest had not been charged. Thus, from the resume of the above, it seems to me that it is too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that they had not been served with a notice before passing of the order, Annexure P-2. In the situation as aforesaid, the petitioners cannot draw any support from Hamam Singh's case (supra ).