SANJIV KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the orders Annexures P1 to P3 vide which the booth plot alloted to the petitioner has been resumed on the ground of non-construction and the appeal as well as the revision petition filed by him have been dismissed.

(2.) THE record produced by Shri Rupinder Khosla shows that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Administrator, New Mandi Townships, Punjab the petitioner applied for allotment of booth site at Morinda. After accepting the highest bid given by him, the respondent No. 2 allotted plot No. 17 to the petitioner. He also directed Naib Tehsildar to hand over possession of the plot to the allottee for the purpose of construction. Condition No. 14 of the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 for auction of the plot as also Condition No. 12 of the allotment letter together with the endorsement made to the Naib Tehsildar, which are relevant for the purpose of decision of this case, are reproduced below : Condition No. 14 of the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 for auction of the plot.

(3.) THE only substantial argument urged by Shri Ravinder Chopra is that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide notice dated 28.8.1987 for cancellation of the allotment on the allegation of non-construction are liable to the declared without jurisdiction because the same were initiated before the expiry of 2 years period specified in the auction notice and the allotment letter. Shri Chopra submitted that possession of the site was handed over to the petitioner on 19.2.1988 and, therefore, the dead-line for raising the construction was 18.2.1990. However, 5 months before the expiry of 2 years period, the respondent No. 2 initiated action for resumption of the site in complete disregard of the statutory provisions. Learned Counsel also submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner on 18.9.1987 and 17.7.1989 seeking extension of time for raising the construction cannot be used against him because the proceedings for resumption of site could not have been initiated before 18.2.1990. The learned Deputy Advocate General justified the action of the respondent No. 2 to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 13 of 1960 Rules on the ground that the petitioner had failed to complete the construction within 2 years from the date of allotment. Shri Khosla submitted that the failure of the petitioner to complete the building even after the issuance of notice dated 28.8.1988 is sufficient to prove that the petitioner was not willing to comply with the conditions of allotment and, therefore, the impugned orders should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.