Lt. Col. J.S. Gosal vs Jaskaran Kaur and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Facts giving rise to this contempt petition may in brief be noticed thus:

Petitioner was allotted one kanal plot in the Urban Estate of Jalandhar and in pursuance of the allotment, he deposited 25% of the total price of the plot as fixed by the Estate Officer, in the year 1977. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not intimated the number of the plot allotted to him. He was also not delivered the possession thereof. In action of the authorities to either intimate the number of the plot or to deliver possession thereof, forced the petitioner to file a writ petition being C.W.P. 3634 of 1983. This writ petition was finally allowed by J.L. Gupta, J. by order dated 6.5.1994 (reported as 1994 3 PLR 214). The respondents were directed to allot and hand over the possession of one of the five available one kanal plots to the petitioner and this was ordered to be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Petitioner after the decision of the writ petition deposited the remaining 75% of the price of the plot vide bank draft No. 350546 dated 1.6.1994 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Chandigarh and payable at Jalandhar which was duly received and acknowledged by the authorities. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent-authorities filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed on 7.7.1994 in limine. The petitioner was ultimately issued allotment letter vide which he was allotted residential plot 605, measuring 500 sq. yards in Phase-I, Urban Estate, Jalandhar. The tentative price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 6,00,000/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per sq. yard. This price was also subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the site as well as subject to enhancement of, compensation by the courts or otherwise. The petitioner was required to send his acceptance by registered post along with an amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter, which amount together with an amount of Rs. 27,000/- paid by him earlier would constitute 25% of the total tentative price. The balance amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- of the tentative price of the plot was required to be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in six annual equated instalments with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The amounts of six equated instalments payable with interest @ 10% per annum were indicated in the letter of allotment, a copy of which is Annexure P-4 to the contempt petition. The petitioner represented against the arbitrary increase in the price of the plot and prayed that the increase was in violation of the order of the Court and it amounted to wilful disobedience thereof and should be withdrawn. The further case of the petitioner is that when he met respondent No. 1 in her office to air his grievance, he was asked by her to pay the entire amount, otherwise allotment of the plot would be cancelled. The petitioner received a letter dated 11.10.1994 issued by respondent No. 1 pointing out that as per condition No. 3 of the allotment letter, 25% of the price of the plot was to be deposited within 30 days, which had not been done. Petitioner was required to show cause as to why the plot be not forfeited. A copy of the said letter is appended to the petition as Annexure P-6. Even personal visit of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 did not bear any fruit. The petitioner was, however, granted time uptil 15.11.1994 to make the payment with a clear understanding that if the amount is not deposited the plot allotted to him would be forfeited. The action of the respondents in asking the petitioner to pay a sum of rupees six lacs subject to further enhancement led him to file this contempt petition, praying that the respondents be dealt with for wilfull disobedience of the order passed by this Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Replies on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 have been filed in response to notice issued in the contempt petition. Respondent No. 2 in his short reply stated that the averments contained in this petition relate to respondent No. 1 and the letter of allotment had also been issued by her.

Respondent No. 1 in her reply admitted that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6750/- in the year 1977 for allotment of one Kanal plot at Jalandhar and that in view of the decision in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, he was issued an allotment letter 7147 dated 22.8.1994, but he failed to comply with the conditions mentioned therein. As per the averments made by respondent No. 1 in her reply, allotment was to be made at the present prevailing rate i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1200/-per sq. yard whereas the petitioner had sent a draft in the sum of Rs. 20,250/- plus Rs. 6750/- only. The petitioner wilfully failed to deposit the required balance amount. In para 9 of the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner has been allotted a one-kanal plot as per the orders of this Court and that the plea of the petitioner regarding the rate of Rs. 55/- per sq. yard was absolutely wrong, illegal, unwarranted and unconstitutional. The price of the plot is to be charged from the allottee as per the prevailing rates at the time of issuing allotment letter. It is further stated that even in many other such cases where the applications were made by the persons in the year 1977 and their names were put in the draw in the year 1994, such successful applicants were allotted plots at the present prevailing price of Rs. 1200/-per sq. yard and all of them have paid the same. Issuance of allotment letter in August, 1994 to the petitioner on the conditions stated therein was admitted by respondent No. 1. On the failure of the petitioner to pay 25% of the price of the plot within 30 days, he was given another opportunity to appear in person and ultimately time was extended upto 15.11.1994. The petitioner has, however, failed to deposit 25% of the price of the plot despite letter dated 11.10.1994, having been written to him by ders of this Court have been complied with and question of willful disobedience there of does not arise. In the aforesaid situation, it was prayed that the Contempt petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to deposit the balance amount as per the conditions contained in the allotment letter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that decision to allot a one kanal plot in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar had been conveyed to the petitioner in the year 1977, and a sum of Rs. 6750/- was paid and accepted being 25% of the price of the plot. Neither number of the plot was intimated nor the possession thereof was delivered. This forced the petitioner to file the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to allot a plot to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, petitioner became entitled to a plot in the year 1977, when the same was offered and 25% of the price was accepted. After the direction of this Court, petitioner could not be asked to pay the present market price as he was entitled to the plot at the price offered in the year 1977. The in-action of the authorities to deliver possession or allot the number of the plot did not clothe them to charge the market price. The action of the respondents in allotting the plot at the present market value and directing him to pay a sum of rupees six lacs as the market price of the plot was nothing but wilful and deliberate in defiance of the High Court orders. Further, the threat to cancel the plot in the event of failure of the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- was nothing but an effort on the part of the respondent to by-pass the judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that these acts of the respondents are nothing but in deliberate disobedience of the High Court order and therefore punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the only direction given by the High Court in its order dated 6.5.1994 was to allot a one-kanal plot to the petitioner and the question of price of the plot had not been settled. He was thus rightly asked to pay the market price of the plot. Learned counsel submitted that the order having been complied with, respondents are not liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act and rule issued against them may be discharged.

In contempt proceedings, it is the foremost duty of the Court to see, whether the order, the non-compliance of which is alleged by the petitioner, has been carried out in its letter and spirit or not and whether the action or in-action attributed to the respondents amount to wilful disobedience or violation of the order. In the case in hand, the petitioner was called upon by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab in June, 1977 to pay a sum of Rs. 6750/- after it had been decided to allot him a one kanal plot in the Urban Estate, Jalandhar. This amount concededly represented 25% of the price of the plot. The needful was done by the petitioner within the stipulated period. Thus all that remained to be done was to convey the number of the plot allotted and to hand over the possession thereof. It was not disputed before the Court hearing the writ petition that under Rule 7 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sales of Sites) Rules, 1965 possession of the site was to be delivered to the transferee after the payment of 25% of the price is made. Possession of the site was not delivered to the petitioner even after he deposited the amount equivalent to 25% of the total price, rather after a period of four years, he was informed that no plot was available. It is quite clear from the order passed in the writ petition that in order to controvert the stand of the respondents the petitioner informed the Court by filing a civil Misc. that at least five plots were still available with the respondents for allotment and on notice of the application having been issued, the respondents conceded the above position. The action on the part of the respondents was, therefore, held to the learned counsel for the petitioner had directed the respondents to produce the original file relating to allotment of plots, but it is quite surprising to notice that Ms. Jaskaran Kaur, Estate Officer, respondent No. 1 in the contempt petition informed the court by filing an affidavit that the whole file was missing for the last five years. Once a decision had been taken to allot a plot and the allottee completed all the formalities and paid the money, it did not lie in the mouth of the authorities to deny the allotment or to ask for a higher price i.e. the now prevailing market price. Rights and claims of the parties stood settled the moment the formalities were completed and 25% of the price was accepted. In-action or delayed action on the part of the respondents to intimate the number of the plot or to deliver possession thereof did not clothe them with a better right or permitted them to have a premium over their own faults and lapses and that too after a period of seventeen years a pre-existing right was recognised by the High Court and direction was given to hand over the possession of one of the available plots. The question of charging the current market price was not raised by the respondents either before the Learned Single Judge or in the Letters Patent Appeal. Present is not a case where the right to the plot was determined or established for the first time in the year 1994. A direction to allot the plot was rather given after noticing that a decision had been taken to allot the plot in the year 1977 and after the completion of the formalities, possession was not delivered and the action of not delivering the possession was arbitrary and unfair. It is thus absolutely clear that the price then prevailing was to be charged. There is nothing in the judgment or otherwise which could justify the charging of the present market price. This is precisely the view that has been taken in Harish Kumar Virja v. State of Haryana 1995 2 P.L.R. 110. After the judgment attained finality, respondent No. 1 issued allotment letter dated 22.8.1994 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- towards the balance of 25% of the price of the plot, the total price being rupees six lacs calculated at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per sq. yard. Dismayed totally and rightly by the dilly-dalling attitude of the respondents, the petitioner tried to show that the action of asking him to pay the market price was not justified, but this did not find favour with respondent No. 1. She rather threatened to cancel the allotment of the plot in the event the amount was paid within time.

It is in the above context to be seen, whether action of respondent No. 1, Estate Officer, Punjab Housing Development Board, Urban Estate, Jalandhar, in asking the petitioner to pay at the prevalent rate, was bonafide or was a wilful and deliberate act on her part to circumvent the judgment of the High Court by forcing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. six lacs as against the offered price of Rs. 55/- per sq. yard in the year 1977. On repeatedly being asked during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents could not show as to under what provisions of law the petitioner was being asked to pay the current market price. Learned counsel only submitted that the allotment letter was issued in the year 1994 and, therefore, the market price then prevailing was required to be paid. As already discussed above, it is clearly discernible from the High Court order, that the price payable was the one offered in the year 1977. The other submission made was that even the applicants of 1977, who had been allotted plots in the year 1994 were required to pay the present market price. The contention in my view lacks merit and does not justify the action of respondent No. 1 as in those'' cases, plots had not been offered in the year 1977 and those applicants had not been required to pay 25% of the sale consideration, as is the position in the present case. In my opinion the action of respondent No. 1 was nothing but a deliberate act on her part to by-pass the High Court order. The action lacks bone fide. Respondent No. 1 even did not tender unqualified apology while filing the written statement or during the course of arguments. The action of respondent No. 1 in not allotting the plot as per the directions of the Court but at the price of rupees six lacs was nothing but an action totally in defiance of the High Court order and she flagrantly and in sheer disobedience of the Court order directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. six lacs which action she has not been able to justify on the touch-stone of any plausible explanation what to talk of a bona fide explanation on her part. During the ''Course of hearing of the petition, learned counsel was asked if respondent No. 1 was at that stage ready to reconsider the matter of price, but the learned counsel after seeking instructions replied in the negative. In the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that respondent No. 1 is guilty of contempt and is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Notice issued to respondent No. 2 is, however, discharged for the stand taken by him in the written statement.

As regards the sentence to be awarded to respondent No. 1, keeping in view the nature of the charge and the further fact that she is at the threshold of her career, I instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, order her to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-. The fine shall be paid within a fortnight from today and in default of payment of fine, respondent No. 1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

The petition stands allowed in the above terms.