HARBINDER SINGH DHILON Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 16-7-2004 (Annexure P20) and 25-8-2006 (Annexure P24)vide which the prayer of the petitioners for re-transfer of the site in question has been rejected by the official respondents. The petitioners have also prayed that a direction be issued to the official respondents to re-transfer S. C. O. No. 3023-3024, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh in their favour by in voking Rule 21-B (wrongly mentioned as Rule 21-A in the writ petition) of the chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 (for short, 'the Rules' ).

(2.) IN the year 1976, the official respondents held an auction of commercial sites to be transferred on lease-hold basis in which the deceased-father of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and pro-forma respondent nos. 4. to 6 (hereinafter described as 'the allottees') participated. They were successful bidders insofar as S. C. O. No. 3023-24, sector 22-D, Chandigarh was concerned and accordingly, the site was allotted to them at a premium of Rs. 2,50,000/~ and yearly rent of Rs. 6250/- for first thirty three years. The site was specifically meant for setting up a lodging-cum-Restaurant. The allottees paid 25% of the premium of the site as per the terms stipulated in the auction proceedings and a copy of the allotment letter dated 25-1-1977 was issued to them. The rest of the amount was to be paid in instalments as per the schedule provided in the allotment letter. Non-compliance of the terms invited penalty and cancellation of the allotment as well as forfeiture of the amount already paid.

(3.) AFTER making initial deposit of 25%, the allottees took over the possession and constructed the basement and ground floor on the site, but failed to deposit the instalments of the premium which resulted in the proceedings being initiated against them under Rule 20 of the Rules and the allotment of the site in question was cancelled and 10% of the premium and amount of the ground rent was forfeited. The allottees preferred an appeal against the cancellation of allotment, but the same was dismissed on 29-7-1980. They sought to make the payment of the entire amount at that stage, but the official respondents refused to accept the offer and the order of cancellation was upheld by the appellate authority. The revision petition preferred by the allottees with the same plea was also rejected vide order dated 7-6-1989 and as a logical corollary, the Estate Officer of Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 26-2-1990, ordered the eviction of the allottees from the site in question under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). This resulted in a separate appeal being filed against order dated 26-2-1990 before the District judge, Chandigarh which was also dismissed on 24-9-1994. C. W. P. No. 6579 of 1995 filed against the order passed by the district Judge was also dismissed by this court on 5-8-1995.