Hari Ram vs State of Punjab and Others

G.R. Majithia and S.K. Jain, JJ.—The petitioner has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh dated December 15, 1992, dismissing the Misc. Application No. 78 of 1991-92 filed by the petitioner u/s 15 (3) of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) against the appellate order of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated January 15, 1992, whereby his appeal was. dismissed in limine being barred by time, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner was transferred shop site bearing No. 120, situated in Grain Market, Abohar, he being the highest bidder in open auction held on December 14, 1973. Letter of allotment dated September 27, 1973. Letter of allotment dated September 27,1974 was issued to him. The first instalment of Rs. 9,469,50 in respect of the said site fell due on March 27, 1975. He was served with a registered notice dated September 8, 1975 calling upon him to pay the first instalment with penalty. He did not deposit the instalment. A second show cause notice dated November 11, 1975 was issued calling upon him to deposit Rs. 18,792.95 failing which the plot would be resumed and the earnest money already deposited would be forfeited. The petitioner did not deposit the money and the shop site was resumed vide order dated May 24, 1976 passed by the Administrator, New Mandi Townships. Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as the ''Administrator''). The petitioner challenged the order dated May 24, 1976 in appeal u/s 15 of the Act before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, The appeal was dismissed in limine being barred by time vide order dated January 15, 1992. The appellate order of the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in Misc. Application/petition alleged to have been filed u/s 15 (3) of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. The Financial Commissioner partly accepted the application and directed the Administrator to refund to the petitioner the amount which had been forfeited in excess of the amount which could be legally forfeited. The Administrator has complied with the directions of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) as contained in his order dated December 15, 1992 and refunded a sum of Rs. 8,873-45 to the petitioner through refund voucher dated August 12, 1993. The Administrator took possession of the shop site through Naib Tehsildar Colony, Bathinda on July 9, 1976. Respondents No. 4 and 5 purchased the said shop site from the Administrator after it had been validly resumed and they have raised construction thereon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act were declared ultra vires by this Court in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. The State of Punjab 1978 P.L.J. 396 and as such the resumption order is bad at law as there was no power with the Administrator to resume the shop site.

The Act was amended by Punjab Act No. 16 of 1981 and validation clause, reading thus, was introduced through the Amending Act:-

"Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, anything done or any action taken, including any notice issued, any order made for resumption of any site, or building, or both, as the case may be or any such resumption effected, or any order made for the forfeiture of any money or money forfeited, or any order made for the recovery of any arrears or any arrears recovered, or any penalty imposed or recovered or purported to have been done or taken under the principal Act, shall, in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such thing or action was done or taken under the principal Act, as amended by this Act, and accordingly no suit or legal proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court."

We are not expressing any opinion on the validity of the Punjab Act No. 16 of 1981. We are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) principally on the ground that after the shop site was resumed and possession was taken from the petitioner in the year 1976, it was transferred to respondents No. 4 and 5. The transferees have paid full consideration to the Administrator and they have raised the construction over it. The Administrator in his written statement has candidly stated that respondents No. 4 and 5 are bona fide transferees. The facts as brought on record vouch safe the assertion made by him. Interference with the order of resumption at this stage will result in extreme hardship to respondents No. 4 and 5, who have purchased the shop site from its lawful owner and have raised construction over it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in similar circumstances this Court had quashed the order of resumption. He drew our attention to a judgment dated December 2, 1992 rendered by one of us in Civil Writ Petition No. 4669 of 1982 (Sunil Kumar v. The State of Punjab and Anr.) . The facts in the unreported judgment are distinguishable. In that case, the auction purchaser had built a shop on the shop site after it was transferred to him. The auction purchaser was not intimated the balance sale price due from him. The facts proved on record in that case were suggestive of the fact that the Administrator, New Mandi Townships, Punjab did not take any steps to take possession of the shop after the alleged order of resumption was passed against the petitioner in that case or intimate him to deposit the balance sale price. It was in those peculiar circumstances that the order of resumption was quashed and the auction purchaser was directed to pay the entire purchase price.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.