Bhajan Singh vs Advisor to the Administrator

Lisa Gill, J.—The petitioner in this case had been allotted residential site No. 512, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh in the year 1998 vide allotment letter (Annexure P-1). The petitioner had deposited 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs. 5,02,500/- out of total amount of Rs. 20,10,000/-. The petitioner failed to pay the amount of instalments on the due dates. A show cause notice under Rule 12 (3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short ''the Rules'') was issued. A number of opportunities of being heard were given to the petitioner. Despite opportunities, the petitioner did not pay the outstanding dues and ultimately vide order dated 18.08.1999 the lease of the site in question was cancelled. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order in the year 2005.

The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2005. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a revision petition under Rule 22 (4) of the Rules. The revisional authority vide order dated 09.08.2006 set aside the above said orders and restored the site subject to the condition that the petitioner would clear the entire outstanding dues within one month failing which the order of the Estate Officer would become operative. An amount of Rs. 18 lakhs had been deposited by the petitioner before the revisional authority by way of demand drafts. An amount of Rs. 53,44,414/- was due from the petitioner up to 31.08.2006 as per the intimation annexed as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition.

Admittedly, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of making the payment, which was granted to him by the revisional authority. After a period of six years, the petitioner moved an application for recalling order dated 09.08.2006. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure P-6).

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient funds could not be arranged by him due to losses in his business and personal health problems, the details of which are in any case conspicuous by their absence even in the present writ petition. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to make the payment of entire outstanding amount including the ground rent, interest and penalties etc. which may have accrued till date.

The submission of the petitioner is liable to be rejected inasmuch as it is evident from the perusal of the writ petition that the petitioner has not paid any amount after having deposited 25% of the total payment. The revisional authority had taken an extremely sympathetic view while setting aside the orders of cancellation of lease and had granted another opportunity to the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding dues within one month. The petitioner failed to avail this opportunity. In fact, it is apparent that no steps whatsoever were taken by the petitioner to fulfill his contractual obligation. The prices of immovable property have risen manifold in the interregnum and to permit the petitioner to make the payment of entire outstanding amount at this point of time would be unjustified and infact putting a premium on the act of the petitioner in withholding the dues towards the State exchequer. The speculative conduct on the part of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that after passing of order dated 09.08.2006, he took no steps for the payment of the dues outstanding against him. It is only in the year 2012 that an application is suddenly moved for recalling order dated 09.08.2006 before the revisional authority, thereby showing scant respect for his own undertaking.

It has been held by this Court in the case of Ravinderpal Singh versus U.T. reported as 2001 (2) RCR (Civil) 169 that acceptance of the prayer for deposit of the entire amount due alongwith interest and penalties etc. at a belated stage after the value of property has been manifold, would amount to an avoidable loss to the public exchequer.

Thus, no ground for interference is made out in the petitioner''s favour.

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.