RANDHIR SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition discloses the lopsided approach adopted by the authorities of the Union Territory, Chandigarh to deal with those who commit defaults in the deposit of premium, ground rent etc. resulting in continued occupation of the premises for long periods of time. The petitioner was allotted residential plot No. 3487 measuring 169 sq. yards in Sector 37-D, Chandigarh on 25.10.1972 for a sum of Rs. 4225/-. Physical possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 23.3.1973. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 422.50 vide demand draft No. 83172 dated 31.1.1972 before issuance of allotment letter. After the issuance of allotment letter he deposited Rs. 739.38 vide demand draft dated 27.12.1972. After delivery of possession, the petitioner applied for extension of time for depositing the balance amount. One of his applications was accepted by the Estate Officer and time for payment of instalment money was extended upto 27.2.1974. It, however, appears that the petitioner did not deposit the amount in time. This led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease- Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. By an order dated 7.1.1976, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease granted to the petitioner and forfeited 10% of the premium of the site. The Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh before whom the petitioner filed appeal passed order on 17.8.1976 restoring the site to the petitioner subject to the condition that the entire amount relating to first instalment is paid upto 30.9.1976 and the second instalment is paid by 31.10.1976. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 10(4) of the Act of 1952 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 1973. The same was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on May 18, 1979. The review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on 27.12.1979 on the ground that no such review application was maintainable.

(2.) -3. In the meantime, the Estate Officer issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the amount specified in the order of the Chief Administrator. Vide Annexure P6 dated 28.1.1977 the Estate Officer intimated to the petitioner that the order of cancellation of lease stands against him. After about 16 years, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator on 1.11.1994. His revision petition has also been dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 8.7.1996. A sum of Rs. 13500/- deposited by the petitioner vide demand draft No. 852881 dated 7.5.1994 has also been returned to him. 4. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 105.38 in excess of the amount due and just the amount of first instalment was deposited on 22.7.1975, the second instalment on 21.2.1976 and the third instalment on 9.9.1977. The petitioner has asserted that the amount deposited by him on 9.9.1977 was returned by the Administration. He has pleaded that the finding recorded by the Chief Administrator regarding his (petitioner's) default and the direction given for the deposit of the amount of first and second instalments was erroneous because as on 7.7.1976 the amount of these instalments had already been deposited. The petitioner has challenged the order of resumption on the ground of non-application of mind and also on the ground that after fulfilling the conditions specified in the order passed by the Chief Administrator on 17.8.1976, the respondents should have restored the site to him. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition by alleging that the petitioner did not deposit the amount of instalments due from him. In paragraph 12 of the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner failed to deposit 2nd and 3rd instalments along with the amount forfeited by the Chief Administrator and, therefore, the order passed by the Estate Officer stood restored. The respondents have pleaded that the second round of litigation in which the petitioner indulged was wholly unwarranted. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner had in fact deposited the amount of first instalment before the order of resumption was passed on 7.1.1976. The amount of second instalment was also deposited by the petitioner on 21.2.1976 i.e. much before the date on which the Chief Administrator decided the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Estate Officer was duty bound to take into consideration the amount deposited by the petitioner before making a declaration on 16.10.1976 and 28.1.1977 that the cancellation of the site stood restored. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner did not take steps to get the orders Annexures P5 and P6 set aside for a period of almost 19 years. In stead of moving this Court he felt satisfied by filing appeal and revision before the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator. In our opinion, neither the appeal nor the revision petition could be entertained by those authorities and no illegality has been committed by them in dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. 6. However, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the provisions contained in Rule 21-A of the Rules of 1973 deserve to be invoked in this case because it will be wholly inequitable to allow the respondents to dispossess the petitioner after more than 21 years of the passing of the order of resumption. Therefore, even though we do not find any error in the orders Annexures P7 and P9 whereby the appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed but we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's application under Rule 21-A of the Rules of 1973. 7. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :-