SATYA DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to quash the order Annexure P-1 passed by Administrator, New Mandi Township, Haryana, Chandigarh, on September 25, 1978, on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay certain instalments.

(2.) PLOTS situated in New Mandi Township Sirsa were sold in open auction on March 14, 1974. The petitioner purchased. Plot No. 81-B. for an amount of Rs. 22,500/ -. She deposited one-fourth of the bid amount and the remaining amount had to be deposited in three yearly equated instalments. According to the respondents, there was default in payment of these three instalments and, therefore the order of resumption was passed by the Administrator, New Mandi Township Haryana, Chandigarh, on September 25, 1978. The same was confirmed by the Commissioner vide his order dated June 28, 1982, and further revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, was also dismissed on May 10,1983. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the said orders. According to the petitioner, after purchasing the plot she built a house in the plot and she offered to pay the whole amount outstanding against the petitioner but the same was not accepted because of the delay. By an interim order dated November 3, 1983, this Court directed that "no auction would take place if the petitioner deposits the entire auction amount plus interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the amount of penalty within one month from today, failing which the stay order shall automatically stand vacated". In pursuance of the order dated November 3, 1983, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 38,073,50 p as demanded by the Administrator, New Mandi Township Haryana Chandigarh, and the Administrator also issued letter to the Advocate-General on December 14, 1983, stating that in compliance with the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated November 3, 1983, the petitioner had paid all the amount payable for the plot within the stipulated period. Thus the entire amount due to the respondents by the petitioner has been cleared even in the year 1983. In the same circumstances, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 807 of 1973 dated November 14, 1986, set aside the order of resumption. In another matter also, the Supreme Court by its judgment in Lekh Raj v. State of Haryana and Ors. dated December 2, 1994, set aside the order of resumption by directing the appellant to pay the balance amount due with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum and directed that on payment of the full amount along with interest, the plot shall be transferred in the name of the appellant.

(3.) I am, therefore, of the opinion that writ petition is liable to be allowed.