S S GILL Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After about one year of the issuance of letter of allotment in their favour in respect of residential site No. 1459, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh for a premium of Rs. 13,10,000/-, a request was made by the petitioners for surrender of the site on the ground that they were unable to pay the instalments. The Assistant Estate Officer did not accept their request. Instead, he issued notice dated 15.7.1991 (the date has been incorrectly mentioned as 11.7.1991 in the order Annexure P.2) under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease-Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') proposing cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the premium and ground rent. In response to the notice, petitioner No.1 appeared before the Assistant Estate Officer on 28.8.1991 and reiterated, that surrender of the site may be accepted. On that very day, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, passed order Annexure P.2 for cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of Rs. 13,100/- i.e., one per cent of the premium plus interest and ground rent. The Chief Administrator dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Rule 22 of the Rules.

(2.) Aggrieved by the afore-mentioned orders, the petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 mainly on the ground that the Assistant Estate Officer did not have the jurisdiction to invoke Rule 12(3) for cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the premium because the petitioners did not commit any default in the payment of the premium. They have also described the forfeiture of Rs. 1,26,339/- as wholly arbitrary and unjustified.

(3.) The respondents have pleaded for sustaining the order of cancellation of lease by stating that after having shown their unwillingness to retain the allotment, the petitioners cannot challenge the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer. The respondents have also justified forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioners on the ground that they were required to pay ground rent in accordance with the conditions of allotment and Rule 13 of the Rules.