Prem Kumar and Another vs Chandigarh Administration and Another

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.—Estate Officer, Chandigarh, second respondent herein, held an open auction on 04.11.1978 for allotment of certain residential sites on lease hold basis for 99 years. Petitioners, who are husband and wife, were lucky enough to succeed in a bid for such a site i.e. Plot No. 93, Sector 38A, Chandigarh, measuring 126.75 sq. yds. (05 marlas) for a total consideration of Rs. 22,500/- plus ground rent @ Rs. 562.50 per annum for the first 33 years. After they deposited an amount of Rs. 5625/- (being 25% of the amount of premium) a letter of allotment dated 06.12.1978 (Annexure P-1) was issued in favour of the petitioners. As per terms of the allotment, the petitioners were required to pay the balance amount of premium (say 75% of the premium) in three equated annual installments of Rs. 6436.50 each, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the first instalment being payable on 04.11.1979, second on 04.11.1980 and the third on 04.11.1981. The annual rent was to be paid @ Rs. 562.50 per annum for the first 33 years on or before 10th day of December every year. Petitioners could not pay the balance amount of premium, interest and ground rent in spite of a notice dated 06.06.1983. As a consequence, vide order dated 25.08.1983 (Annexure P-2), lease of the site in favour of the petitioners was cancelled and an amount equivalent to 10% of the premium, i.e. Rs. 2250/-, ground rent and interest was forfeited under Rule 12(5) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (herein-after referred to as, ''the 1973 Rules''. An appeal having been filed against order dated 25.08.1983 (Annexure P-2) under Rule 22 of the 1973 Rules, the appellate authority, vide order dated 06.08.1985 (Annexure P-4), set aside the order dated 25.08.1983 (Annexure P-2), restored the lease in favour of the petitioners subject to the conditions "that the appellants pay the amount of all the three instalments of premium, the amount of interest thereon and the amount of ground rent within a period of three months reckonable from the date of issue of this order". Forfeiture ordered by the Estate Officer, however, was upheld.

The petitioners still could not pay the amount due within the specified period and in spite of notice dated 24.10.1985 (Annexure P-5). They, instead, preferred a revision petition u/s 10 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, ''the 1952 Act''), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.03.1990 (Annexure P-8) and order of cancellation of lease stood revived.

Having been pushed to the wall, the petitioners have invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by way of the instant Civil Writ Petition to assail the three orders, dated 25.08.1983 (Annexure P-2), order dated 06.08.1985 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 21.03.1990 (Annexure P-8).

Pursuant to a notice, respondents have appeared and have filed a joint written statement, wherein, while admitting the factual matrix, as stated above, it has been stated that intention of the petitioners is not to pay the outstanding amounts but only to delay the matter.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record.

The site in question was allotted to the petitioners on lease hold basis for a total consideration of Rs. 22,500/- plus ground rent and interest. Out of this amount, the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 5625/- before issue of letter of allotment. A perusal of order dated 25.08.1983 (Annexure P-2) reveals that when this order was passed only an amount of Rs. 21541/- was outstanding out of the amount of premium. When notice dated 24.10.1985 (Annexure P-5) was issued, the amount payable by the petitioners, as on that day, had swelled into Rs. 42,833.60. By this notice, the petitioners were called upon to deposit this amount on or before 06.01.1985. The fact that the petitioners were not able to pay the meager amount of Rs. 42,833.60 should leave none in doubt that fiscal health of the petitioners was very critical. This, perhaps, compelled the petitioners to take another chance by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of the 1952 Act. They, however, did not succeed in the endeavor. However, during pendency of the revision petition, the petitioners sent to the respondents a demand draft dated 31.01.1990 for Rs. 40,000/- but the respondents returned it to them vide memorandum dated 10.04.1990 (Annexure P-9). Though the demand draft of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the petitioners during the pendency of the revision petition but it, somehow, was not brought to the notice of the revisional authority. Anyhow, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous seeking permission of this Court to deposit the entire amount outstanding against them. The Civil Miscellaneous was disposed of vide order dated 19.04.1995 and the petitioners were permitted to deposit the amount, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in the pending litigation. The petitioners, accordingly, got the amount calculated from the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, as evidenced by writing dated 07.07.1995, photocopy of which has been retained on record, and deposited the amount of Rs. 85,000/- so calculated, on 19.07.1995.

It may be added here that the petitioners pleaded before the appellate and revisional authorities that father of the first petitioner had been ailing for long and, as such, the petitioners, besides spending a lot on his treatment, had to support five sisters of the first petitioner. The petitioners even thought of disposing of land of father of the first petitioner but even it could not be done in view of the unfavourable circumstances that prevailed in this part of the country during the decade under reference. These circumstances, unfortunately, did not find favour with the above-said authorities. Not only this, the authorities have also failed to take note of the fact that the amount involved in the matter was very meagre and had there not been some compelling circumstances, the petitioners would not have taken the risk of losing their 05 marlas residential plot, perhaps their only possession in this City Beautiful.

Be that as it may, the petitioners have deposited the entire amount outstanding against them in respect of allotment of the site in question as on 07.07.1995. It has been very fairly conceded by the learned counsel representing the respondents that if the amount of Rs. 85,000/- deposited by the petitioners on 19.07.1995 is accounted for, nothing except the ground rent for the period from 1995 onwards, would be due from them. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 25.08.1983 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 21.03.1990 (Annexure P-8) and restore the order dated 06.08.1985 (Annexure P-4) with the modification that the petitioners shall only be liable to pay arrears of ground rent for the period 1995 onwards, with interest as per extant rules, within two months from the date of amount so due is communicated to the petitioners by the Estate Officer. The writ petition is disposed of in the above stated terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.