SAT PAL BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the orders Annexures P.1, P.3 and P.4 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, the Chief Administrator and the Adviser to the Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh under Rules 13(iii) and 22 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) The petitioner and his co-bidder were allotted commercial site No. 61 on 17.9.1980 by the Chandigarh Administration on lease hold basis for a premium of Rs. 1,84,000/- in view of the highest bid given by them at the auction held on 3.8.1980. In terms of clause 5 of the letter of allotment, they were required to pay ground rent at the rate of Rs. 4,600/- per annum along with instalments of premium. After taking possession of the site by paying 25% of the premium, the petitioner and his co-allottees constructed the building. They paid other dues but did not pay ground rent for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Therefore, proceedings under Rule 13(ii) of the Rules were initiated against them by the competent authority. Public notices were issued on 9.7.1992, 20.7.1992 and 5.8.1992 in the newspapers ("Indian Express" and "The Tribune") calling upon the lessees to deposit the amount of ground rent by 15.8.1992. They were also warned that proceedings for imposition of penalty will be initiated if the due amount of ground rent is not paid by the appointed "date. Notices dated 16.9.1992, 16.10.1992 and 4.11.1992 were personally served upon the lessees to pay the arrears of ground rent and to show cause against the imposition of 100% penalty under Rule 13(iii) of the Rules. The lessees (including the petitioner) neither deposited the due amount of ground rent nor they filed reply or appeared in person to show cause against the proposed action. Ultimately, respondent No. 3 passed order Annexure P.1, the operative portion of which reads as under-

(3.) The appellate authority upheld the order passed by the respondent No. 3. The revisional authority too expressed its concurrence with the conclusions recorded by the Assistant Estate Officer and the Chief Administrator but reduced the penalty to 50% on the ground that the lessees had deposited the due amount of ground rent after passing of the order Annexure P.1. The relevant extracts of the appellate and the revisional orders are reproduced below:-