EX. CAPTAIN BANT SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am disposing of the is writ petition with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the respondents. Ex-Captain Bant Singh Mangat, has filed the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing, Annexure P-1, to the extent where direction has been issued to make payment of Rs. 16747/-. The petitioner through this petition also wants that the directions be given to the respondents to refund the aforesaid amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that some times in the year 1965, he was allotted plot No. 140, in defence colony, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh. As per term No. 11 of the allotment order, the allottee, without the prior permission of the Estate Officer, was not entitled to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer the plot prior to a period of ten years. The petitioner submitted in the petition that because of financial difficulty, he was compelled to sell the said plot. He submitted an application before the Estate Officer for the sale of the plot prior to the expiry of ten years. He was called upon to deposit Rs. 16747/- which he deposited. The case of the petitioner further is that he was not legally required to pay Rs. 16,747/- and the letter, Annexure P-1, vide which the petitioner was called upon to deposit this amount is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and that he is entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and with his assistance have gone though the record of the case. The letter Ex.P-1, was issued somewhere in the year 1979. The petitioner deposited the amount on 5.7.1979. The writ petition has been filed in the year 1996. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of delay and laches. If the petitioner wanted to file a suit, he could have filed the same within a span of three years i.e. up to 5.7.1982. He has come to this Court after 14 years. Extraordinary relief, in such circumstances, cannot be granted to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.