MAI RAM JAIN Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was running his business of repairing and manufacturing trunks at Site No. 24-E, Bajwara, Chandigarh. In the year 1975 the Administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh had framed a Bajwara Liquidation Scheme vide which all these shops and sites of many persons, including the petitioner were resumed. In order to compensate the petitioner and the other oustees, the Administration allotted booths in Sector 47-C. The petitioner was allotted booth site No. 16 in Sector 47-C, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated Sept. 27, 1975, copy Annexures P-1. Clause 14 of the allotment letter provided the completion of the construction of the booth within three months from the date of the issuance of the allotment letter and handing over the possession of the site in Bajwara market within three months positively failing which the allotment of the alternative site will be considered as cancelled and the amount already paid shall be forfeited. The petitioner paid the entire amount of Rs. 5874/- by selling stock of his Bajwara shop, but due to financial stringency as a result of displacement of his business, he failed to construct the booth. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh respondent No. 3 issued notice under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for resuming the booth on the ground of its non-construction. In answer to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer and requested for time for filing the written reply besides to take the assistance of an Advocate, but the Estate Officer did not allow him to do so and passed the resumption order copy Annexure P-2, on that very day, i.e. November 6, 1978, under Rule 12 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites) Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner challenged this order before the Chief Administrater, Chandigarh, through an appeal contending that the Estate Officer has not passed a speaking order. The Chief Administrater partly accepted the appeal and allowed six months' time for completion of the construction. He, however, forfeited an amount of Rs. 587.40 representing 10% of the price of the plot vide order Annexure P.3 dated August 5, 1980. The petitioner alleges that this order was conveyed to him on October 15, 1981, i.e. after the expiry of six months. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrater (Exercising the powers of Administrater), Chandigarh, which was dismissed on August 23, 1988, copy Annexure P-4 on the ground of being barred by time.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the above referred orders, Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 being illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Act, besides against the principles of natural justice, contending that Clause 14 of the allotment letter in fact provided time of three months for vacating the site at Bajwara market as it is not specifically mentioned therein that the site in dispute shall be resumed if the booth is not constructed within three months. It was also stressed that due to financial stringency resulting from the loss of the business of the petitioner he had failed to construct the booth. The impugned order of the Estate Officer was also contended to be bad in law being violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 8-A of the Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned party. The petition was resisted by the respondents contending the rule 12 of the Rules allows a party to agree to a particular period for construction of the building. Thus in the present case, Clause 14 of the allotment letter providing three months' time was perfectly valid as the petitioner had accepted the allotment. It was further maintained that the petitioner were deliberately not constructing the booth and that the order of the Estate Officer was speaking order. It was also stressed that the order dated August 5, 1980 of the Chief Administrater was conveyed through letter dated October 28, 1980 under registered cover.

(3.) There is considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the resumption of the site should be used as ultimate civil sanction by the Authorities in order to enforce the vacation of the site at Bajwara market and construction of the booth. Similar controversy came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Shri Ram v. The Chief Commissioner Chandigarh and others, 1982 84 PunLR 388. After elaborate discussion, S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. (as his Lordship then was) by a majority judgment held the power of resumption is the ultimate civil sanction and must therefore be a weapon of last resort. It was further held that it should be used with great caution and circumstances. This view was again followed by M.R. Agnihotri, J. in Shri Brij Bhushan v. The Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others, 1987 91 PunLR 598 . Obviously the intent of the Legislature in enlacing Section 8-A of the Act was to ensure regulated and prompt development and growth of the building activities for the creation of the Capital in the State of Punjab. After the creation of Union Territory of Chandigarh on Ist November, 1966, Chandigarh became capital of twin sister States i.e. the State of Pb. and Haryana. The Administration must be hard pressed in ensuring prompt construction activity in order to meet the requirement of both the States besides the growth of population. The future of the City whether it will go to Punjab or Haryana being uncertain, the construction of building activity must have come to a stand-still as persons settled in this town were unsure about the future prospects of their business. Under these circumstances, it appears that the Authorities had over-reacted on the situation and straightaway resorted to invoke the extreme action of resumption of booth site and forfeiture of the amount of the persons due to non-construction of the booth within the stipulated period.