DALJIT SINGH Vs. M.C. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .C.F. No. 1006, Motor Market, Mani Majra was allotted on free hold basis vide letter, dated 23rd November, 1989 (Annexure P -l) to Ashwanjit Singh Joson. As per Clause 3 of the allotment letter, a sum of Rs. 1,67,500 stood paid by the allottee towards 25% of the cost of the site, inclusive of earnest money. The balance 75% of the cost, together with interest thereupon at the rate of 10% per annum, was payable in three annual equated installments of Rs. 2,01,000 each, first one falling due on 20th August, 1990. Clause 7 of the allotment letter provided that in case the installment was not paid by the 10th of the month following the month in which it fell due, a show cause notice would be served calling upon the allottee to deposit the installment and also to show cause as to why penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of installment should not be charged from him. In the event of the allottee failing to comply with the terms of show cause notice, the President of the Committee could proceed to take action for resumption of plot without any further notice. The President had, however, the authority to grant extension for payment of the installment with penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum for a period not exceeding six months at all. In case the allottee or the transferee wanted to surrender the site due to certain compelling circumstances, Clause 10 provided that such a request was to be allowed with prior permission from the President of the Committee and the surrender was to be subject to forfeiture of 10% of the amount of 25% of the cost paid at the fall of the hammer.

(2.) THE aforementioned allottee agreed to sell the site in question in favour of the Petitioners after getting prior permission and No Objection Certificate from the Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra. Pursuant thereto, the Committee transferred the site in question in the names of the Petitioners on 27th June, 1990. It appears that the Petitioners could not pay the first installment amounting to Rs. 2,01,000 and due on 20th August, 1990 even within the grace period upto 10th September, 1990. Accordingly, they were served with a show cause notice dated 8th December, 1990 requiring them to deposit the installment along with the penal interest for the delayed period within 30 days from the date of issue of the show cause notice. Another notice dated 31st March, 1991 was served upon them to clear the outstanding dues along with penal interest for delayed period within 15 days and to appear before Executive Officer on 2nd April, 1991 at 10.00 A.M. in the office of the Committee but the Petitioners failed to do so. This was followed by final notice dated 25th April, 1991 served upon the Petitioners to deposit the payment of first installment along with penal interest for delayed period within 15 days and also to appear before the Executive Officer on 10th May, 1991 at 10.30 A.M. but the position remained the same even pursuant thereto. In the meantime, second yearly installment of Rs. 2,01,000 also fell due on 20th August, 1991. The Committee, accordingly, again served a notice dated 22nd November, 1991 upon the Petitioners to deposit the first and the second installment along with the penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum for delayed period upto 28th November, 1991 but the said payment was not made. It appears that the Petitioners became disheartened with their investment and, accordingly, submitted an application dated 24th June, 1992 for surrendering the site. Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra vide order dated 3rd July, 1992 (Annexure P -2) declined the request of the Petitioners for the surrender of the site on the ground that the request for surrender was not covered under the provisions of Clause 10 of the allotment letter. The Executive Officer then proceeded to resume the site in question and further forfeited the entire amount already deposited by the allottee/Petitioners. Aggrieved of the same, the Petitioners filed an appeal (Annexure P -3) which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh vide order dated 15th June, 1999 (Annexure P -4). The aforementioned orders Annexures P -2 and P -4 have been challenged by the Petitioners by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that on 10th May, 1990, a resolution was passed by Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, wherein the powers of The Committee under the various provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as contained in Schedule -I of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931 (for short 'Executive Officer Act') stood delegated to the Executive Officer and, therefore, such an Executive Officer was competent to pass the impugned order of resumption.