JASBIR KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders Annexure P. 2, P. 3 P. 5 and P. 6 passed respectively by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh), the Chief Administrator and the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE petitioner, Smt. Jasbir Kaur, and Shri Jagjit Singh gave the highest bid for Booth Site No. 407, Sector 44 C&d, Chandigarh in the open auction held on 22. 2. 1987 for allotment of commercial sites on lease hold basis. They deposited 25% of the premium of the site and got the possession of the allotted site. In terms of the allotment letter dated 8. 5. 1987, the allottees had the option to deposit the remaining amount of premium with 30 days without any interest or to make payment in three equated annual instalments along with interest @ 7 per cent. In terms of para 5 of the allotment letter, the due dates of payment of first second and third instalments were 22. 2. 1998, 22. 2. 1989 and 22. 2. 1990. The last date by which the payment had to be made in order to avoid punitive action were 10. 3. 1988, 10. 3. 1989 and 10. 3. 19. 90 respectively. The petitioner and Shri. Jagjit Singh paid two instalments but failed to deposit the third instalment by the due date. Thereupon the Assistant Estate Officer issued notice dated 10. 5. 1990 under rule 12 (3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") requiring the allottees to pay the third instalment along with ground rent and penalty within a period of three months i. e. by 15. 8. 1990. However, even after receiving the notice the allottees did not pay the amount. This led to the initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the site. The Assistant Estate Officer issued notice dated 4. 9. 1990 requiring the allottees to show cause why the lease of the site be not cancelled. In all 16 adjournments were granted by the Assistant Estate Officer but the petitioner and her co-allottee failed to avail the same. Rather, neither of them appeared on the last date of hearing. The Assistant Estate Officer considered the facts of the case and held that the default was willful. On the basis of this conclusion, the Assistant Estate Officer cancelled the lease of the site and forfeited 10% of the premium deposited by the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER keeping mum for a period of almost four years' the petitioner and her co-allottee filed revision petition before the Adviser to the Administrator which has been dismissed by the revisional authority vide order Annexure P. 6 dated 29. 1. 1997.