Randhir Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition discloses the lopsided approach adopted by the authorities of the Union Territory, Chandigarh to deal with

those who commit defaults in the deposit of premium, ground rent etc. resulting in continued occupation of the premises for long periods of time.

The petitioner was allotted residential plot No. 3487 measuring 169 sq. yards in Sector 37D, Chandigarh on 25.10.1972 for a sum of Rs. 4225/.

Physical possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 23.3.1973. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 422.50 vide demand draft No.

83172 dated 31.1.1972 before issuance of allotment letter. After the issuance of allotment letter he deposited Rs. 739.38 vide demand draft dated

27.12.1972. After delivery of possession, the petitioner applied for extension of time for depositing the balance amount. One of his applications

was accepted by the Estate Officer and time for payment of instalment money was extended upto 27.2.1974. It, however, appears that the

petitioner did not deposit the amount in time. This led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. By an order dated 7.1.1976, the Estate

Officer cancelled the lease granted to the petitioner and forfeited 10% of the premium of the site. The Chief Administrator, Union Territory,

Chandigarh before whom the petitioner filed appeal passed order on 17.8.1976 restoring the site to the petitioner subject to the condition that the

entire amount relating to first instalment is paid upto 30.9.1976 and the second instalment is paid by 31.10.1976. Against this order, the petitioner

filed a revision petition under Section 10(4) of the Act of 1952 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 1973. The same was dismissed by the Chief

Commissioner on May 18, 1979. The review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on 27.12.1979 on the

ground that no such review application was maintainable.

In the meantime, the Estate Officer issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the amount specified in the order of the Chief

Administrator. Vide Annexure P6 dated 28.1.1977 the Estate Officer intimated to the petitioner that the order of cancellation of lease stands

against him. After about 16 years, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator on 1.11.1994. His revision petition

has also been dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 8.7.1996. A sum of Rs. 13500/ deposited by the

petitioner vide demand draft No. 852881 dated 7.5.1994 has also been returned to him.

In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 105.38 in excess of the amount due and just the

amount of first instalment was deposited on 22.7.1975, the second instalment on 21.2.1976 and the third instalment on 9.9.1977. The petitioner

has asserted that the amount deposited by him on 9.9.1977 was returned by the Administration. He has pleaded that the finding recorded by the

Chief Administrator regarding his (petitioner''s) default and the direction given for the deposit of the amount of first and second instalments was

erroneous because as on 7.7.1976 the amount of these instalments had already been deposited. The petitioner has challenged the order of

resumption on the ground of nonapplication of mind and also on the ground that after fulfilling the conditions specified in the order passed by the

Chief Administrator on 17.8.1976, the respondents should have restored the site to him.

The respondents have contested the writ petition by alleging that the petitioner did not deposit the amount of instalments due from him. In

paragraph 12 of the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner failed to deposit 2nd and 3rd instalments along with the amount forfeited by the

Chief Administrator and, therefore, the order passed by the Estate Officer stood restored. The respondents have pleaded that the second round of

litigation in which the petitioner indulged was wholly unwarranted.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner had in fact deposited the amount of first instalment before the order

of resumption was passed on 7.1.1976. The amount of second instalment was also deposited by the petitioner on 21.2.1976 i.e. much before the

date on which the Chief Administrator decided the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Estate Officer was duty bound to take into

consideration the amount deposited by the petitioner before making a declaration on 16.10.1976 and 28.1.1977 that the cancellation of the site

stood restored. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner did not take steps to get the orders Annexures P5 and P6 set aside for a period

of almost 19 years. In stead of moving this Court he felt satisfied by filing appeal and revision before the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the

Administrator. In our opinion, neither the appeal nor the revision petition could be entertained by those authorities and no illegality has been

committed by them in dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner.

However, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the provisions contained in Rule 21A of the Rules of 1973

deserve to be invoked in this case because it will be wholly inequitable to allow the respondents to dispossess the petitioner after more than 21

years of the passing of the order of resumption. Therefore, even though we do not find any error in the orders Annexures P7 and P9 whereby the

appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed but we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to accept the

petitioner''s application under Rule 21A of the Rules of 1973.

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :

(1) Within one month from the submission of certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall make an application under Rule 21A of the Rules of

1973.

(2) Within one month thereafter the competent authority shall calculate the amount payable by the petitioner in terms of Rule 21A.

(3) Within one month of such intimation, the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount.

(4) If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount intimated by the respondents, then the order passed by the Estate Officer on 7.1.1976 shall stand

restored and the competent authority shall be obliged to resume the possession of the site along with the building and the petitioner shall not be

entitled to claim any compensation or damages from the Administration.

The registry is directed to issue certified copies of the order dasti to both the parties. A separate copy be sent to the Estate Officer, Union

Territory, Chandigarh for securing compliance of the Court''s order.