KIRAN BIR SINGH Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE residential site in question bearing No.1396, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh, was allotted to one Jagan Nath on 11.2.1989. Some agreement to sell the aforementioned site was entered into with one Dwarka Nath, who had further entered into another agreement to sell the site in question with the petitioner. An application for grant of no objection certificate was filed on 21.8.1989 by the original allottee, Sh.Jagan Nath. Necessary permission was granted by respondent No.3 to sell the property, which was valid from 25.9.1989 to 25.10.1989. No sale deed was executed, which resulted into filing of a civil suit, which is stated to have been decreed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the compromise during the course of proceedings whereas the allotment of the site has already been cancelled on 22.12.1992, since the original allottee, Jagan Nath, has failed to pay the isntalments. His appeal was allowed by granting 15 days time to pay defaulted amount, which was not paid within the prescribed time as permitted by the Chief Administrator vide order dated 22.12.1993. He went in revision before the Advisor and on 18.10.1995, the revisional authority noticed that the allottee, Shri Jagan Nath, had brought a sum of Rs.6 lacs, which he was ready and willing to pay to the respondents. However, nothing was paid. THE matter attained finality. Yet a review petition was filed, which resulted into passing of an order dated 15.9.2004. THE last attempt to gain the period of limitation was made by filing the review petition, which was disposed of by order dated 15.9.2004 (P-9) because otherwise the matter had come to an end in the year 1995 when the order dated 18.10.1995 (P-8) was passed.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the petitioner, who stands in the shoe of original allottee, could not have any better interest than his predecessor in interest. The site in question had never remained in possession of either the petitioner or the first allottee as there was continuous default on the part of the original allottee. Even otherwise, the petition is highly belated as the matter had attained finality on 18.10.1995 (P-8). It is well known that there is power of review with the Advisor to the Administrator and futile attempt has been made by getting the order dated 15.9.2004 in order to have a fresh date of limitation, which cannot be accepted. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed being highly belated.