JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, whose suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts. In his suit, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the order passed by the defendant-respondent No. 4 whereby allotment of a single storey shop site in favour of the plaintiff in the Urban Estate of S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali was resumed, is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the appellant, who is a riot affected person, was allotted a single storey shop site by the Punjab Urban Development Authority in accordance with the provisions contained in Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulations) Act, 1964. The aforesaid plot was allotted to the appellant on 11.5.1991 for a total price of Rs. 2,63000. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, 25% of the sale price was deposited by the appellant at the time of allotment whereas the balance 75% was required to be paid by him in three annual instalments with interest at the rate of 7 % per annum. These instalments became due on 11.5.1992, 11.5.1993 and 11.5.1994. As the appellant failed to pay the three instalments, defendant-respondent No. 4, namely, the Estate Officer, PUDA at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in exercise of his powers under Section 10 of the Act, resumed the allotted site vide his order dated 19.12.1994. The appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA which was accepted subject to the condition that he shall deposit the entire balance amount within 30 days i.e. by March 10, 1997. The appellant, however, could not deposit the said amount as a result of which the conditional appellate order became inoperative. The appellant thereafter appears to have preferred a revision petition which was, however, dismissed by the revisional authority on 19.8.1997. It was thereafter that he filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that the order of resumption was illegal, null and void as the same was passed without any jurisdiction and was also liable to be set aside being a non-speaking order.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued and in response thereto the respondent- authorities have put in appearance.