MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR Vs. U T ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made is for quashing of order dated 11-5-1993 (Annexure P-46) whereby it has been conveyed by the Estate Officer, U. T. Chandigarh that the hotel site situated in Sector 17-D, Chandigarh has since been resumed and therefore, request for transfer of site in favour of Maharawal Khewaji Trust cannot be acceded to.

(2.) PETITIONERS No. 1 to 9 are alleging themselves to be trustees and executors of Maharawal Khewaji Trust, i. e. petitioner No. 10. As per the case set out in the petition, the trust was constituted by virtue of registered Will dated 1-6-1982 executed by late Col. Sir Harinder Singh, Ex-ruler of Faridkot. State and became operative on the death of Col. Sir Harinder Singh. Col. Sir Harinder Singh died on 16-10-1989, and by virtue of the Will all personal properties and estates owned by the deceased at the time of death came to vest in the Trust.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the site in dispute was auctioned on 27-9-1970 with the stipulation to complete the construction within two years from the date of auction. The allottee had no intention to construct the building and had been submitting plans knowing well that the same were contrary to the rules governing the field. Since the allottee failed to construct the building within the time originally fixed and subsequently extended, the Estate Officer vide order dated 26-2-1974 passed an order of resumption and also forfeited 10 per cent of the price of site, i. e. Rs. 1,34,000/ -. The order of the Estate Officer was conditionally set aside by the appellate Authority on 20-8-1974. The appellate authority restored the site to. the allottee subject to allottee's completing the building and obtaining a partial occupation certificate by 30-6-1975. Forfeiture of Rs. 1,34,000/- was also reduced to Rs. 6000/ -. The order of the appellate authority was confirmed by the revisional authority except the waiving off the forfeiture amount. Respondents have averred that the allottee was satisfied with this order and accepted the same without making any further challenge by way of any legal proceedings before an appropriate forum. According to the respondents, the last validly passed quasi-judicial order dated 1-2-1975 by the Chief Commissioner in respect of the property in dispute could not be reviewed or varied by way of any subsequent administrative order or an order on a review petition. Respondents thus, have stated that relegating the allottee to the position as on 26-2-1974 after a lapse of 21 years, would amount to permitting the allottee to unjustly enrich itself at public expense. The allottee cannot be allowed to appropriate the unearned profits resultant upon the price hike of commercial plots in the city.