Parshotam Dass vs State of Punjab and Another

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 8.1.1973 vide annexure P-2 resuming the plot No. 56 in New Mandi Township, Bhawanigarh.

A shop bearing plot No. 56 situated in New Mandi Township, Bhawanigarh was auctioned on 13.11.1968 by the Administrator in favour of the petitioner as he was the. highest bidder for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and on the date of auction, he paid 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 2500/-. According to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 1.9.1969, the petitioner has to pay the balance amount in six of half yearly instalments with 5 per cent interest. According to the petitioner, the proper amenities like pacca roads and other facilities are not provided and the 2nd respondent at the time of auction informed that pucca roads and other facilities would be provided and no further amount shall be levied or recovered from the allottees. But the roads, street light, water supply and auction platform and drainage having not been provided and due to some other unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the instalments according to the terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 1.9.1969. Thereafter the 2nd respondent passed the order of resumption dated 8.1.1973 vide Annexure P-2 and on coming to know about the order of resumption, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala, which was dismissed. Meanwhile Section 13 of Punjab New Mandi Township (Development & Regulation) Act, 1960 which provides for resumption was struck down by this Court in Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab 1978 PLJ 396. As the said section was struck down, the petitioner did not feel the necessity of challenging the order of resumption. Thereafter the state of Punjab brought an amendment to the Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981. The provisions of amending Act were given retrospective effect from 1.11.1966 except the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 9 of the amending Act which came into force on 2.7.1981. According to the petitioner the proceedings of resumption were taken u/s 13 of the Original Act and as the said Section was struck down being ultra vires, therefore the order of resumption cannot stand.

It is, therefore, to be seen whether the order of resumption dated 8.3.1973 is liable to be quashed.

Admittedly, the plot bearing No. 56 in New Mandi Township and Bhawanigarh was auctioned on 13.11.1968 and the petitioner became highest bidder. He paid 25 per cent of the bid amount and was required to pay the balance amount in six half yearly instalments. Even according to the petitioner, he did not pay the instalments and the plot was, therefore, resumed under the Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 13 of the Act reads as follows :-

"13. Forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfer :-

(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Administrator may resume any site or building if the transferee or occupier persistently fails to use such site or building for the purpose for which it is sold, leased or transferred or fail to build upon the site within the period allowed or fails to pay the sale price or lease money of such site or building due under this Act or the rules made thereunder;

(ii) In the event of such resumption of any site or building, any money paid or deposited in respect of such site or building may also be forfeited;

Provided that no order or resumption or forfeiture of money shall be passed under this Section without affording the defaulter an opportunity to show cause against it.

(iii) The resumed site or building, as the case may be, may be resold by auction and any loss resulting from such re-sale which is not covered by the amount forfeited under Sub-section (2), shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the defaulter."

In Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab 1978 PLJ 396 Section 13 of the Act was declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the State Legislature amended the Act and substituted Section 13 as follows :-

"13. Imposition of penalty for failure to pay consideration money and resumption and forfeiture in certain cases :-

(i) If any transferee fails to pay the consideration money or any instalment thereof on account of sale of any site or building or both, u/s 3, the Administrator may by notice in writing, call upon the transferee to show cause within a period of thirty days, why a penalty (which shall not exceed ten per centum of the amount due from the transferee) be not imposed upon him.

(ii) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Administrator may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order imposing the penalty and direct that the amount due along with the penalty shall be paid by the transferee within such period as may be specified in the order.

(iii) If the transferee fails to pay the amount due alongwith penalty in accordance with the order under Sub-section (2), or commits a breach of any other conditions of sale, the Administrator may, by notice in writing, call upon the transferee to show cause within a period of thirty days why an order of resumption of the site or building or both, as the case may be, and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof (which is no case shall exceed ten per centum of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of the site or building or both) should not be made.

(iv) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee in pursuance of a notice under Sub-section (3) and any evidence that he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Administrator may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order resuming the site or building or both, as the case may be, so sold and directing the forfeiture as provided in Sub-section (3) of the whole or any part of the money paid in respect of such sale."

Section 8 of the Amending Act validates all the actions taken under the old Act. This amending Act was introduced by the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Amendment and Validation Act, 1981.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings for resumption were taken u/s 13 of the Amending Act which was struck down as ultra vires. Therefore, the orders in question are liable to be set aside, as already observed, Section 8 of the Amending Act deals with the validation of the actions taken under the old section 13 of the Act. If the action taken by the authorities is not inconsistent with the new provisions, then the resumption proceedings should not be interfered with. It is, therefore/to be seen whether the proceedings initiated for resumption of the plot are in any way in-consistent with the provisions of amended Section 13. The petitioner was given a notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and why resumption proceedings be not initiated. Reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay the instalments. In spite of the opportunity being given to the petitioner, he did not pay the amount. Thereafter, only, the resumption order has been passed and plot was taken possession of. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Amending Act are in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the amended Section 13. The petitioner is at fault and he has not paid the instalments in spite of the opportunities being given to him. The authorities are left with no option except to resume the plot. I do not, therefore, find any grounds warranting interference with the order of resumption.

The writ petition therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.