Sarla Sachdeva vs The Estate Officer and Others

S.S. Sodhi and G.C. Garg, JJ.—To acquire now in 1991, a residential plot in Chandigarh at its 1977 price is what these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are all about.

On October 29, 1977, at an auction held by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, the petitioner Sarla Sachdeva obtained allotment of residential site 2340, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh, measuring 198.33 square yards at a premium of Rs. 34,200/-. A sum of Rs. 8,550/- was paid towards 25 per cent of the premium for the site. The balance amount was payable in terms of the allotment letter, (Annexure P/1) in three equal installments along-with interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. In addition, a sum of Rs. 855/- was also payable annually as lease money for the site for the first 33 years. A somewhat larger amount was payable for next two slabs of 33 years.

In terms of the allotment letter, the entire premium payable for the site should have been paid by 1980, but the petitioner failed to do so. A notice was consequently served upon the petitioner on March 31, 1981 under rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. An opportunity was also afforded to the petitioner for being heard on June 29, 1981 and January 12, 1982. No one, however, appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite service resulting eventually in the cancellation of the lease of the petitioner and forfeiture of 10 per cent of the premium for the site plus the amount of ground rent calculated upto the date of the cancellation. This order (Annexure P/2) was passed by the Estate Officer on January 12, 1982 and a copy thereof was forwarded to the petitioner-Sarla Sachdeva on May 5, 1982.

On appeal, the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh set aside the impugned order of the Estate Officer and directed the restoration of the lease of the site to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner pays all the instalments due alongwith interest, forfeiture amount and ground rent within 30 days of his order. This order being of May 17, 1984 (Annexure P/3). It is pertinent to note-that this order was made by the Chief Administrator in view of the specific statement made before him by the petitioner to the effect that she was prepared to pay the entire amount out-standing against her in respect of the lease of the said site. It appears, however; that in pursuance of this order too no further amount was paid. The petitioner instead went up in revision before the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, who, by his order of October 25, 1989 (Annexure P/4), dismissed the revision petition.

The circumstances of material significance to note here that on December 11, 1987, during the pendency of the revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator and after the lease of the site in favour of the petitioner, already stood cancelled, she entered into an agreement for the sale of this site to Shrimati Murti Devi for Rs 1 20,000/-. What is more, according to the return filed on behalf of the Chandigarh Administrator, the present market value of the site is Rs. 5,00,000/-. The relief that the petitioner now seeks is the setting aside of the order canceling the lease, upon the petitioner now paying the entire amount due as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the letter of allotment (Annexure P/1). In other words, at its 1977 price, with, of course, interest thereon.

It will be seen that ample time and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to pay the amount due even much after the time fixed in the allotment letter (Annexure P/1) had elapsed. Not only this, even after stating before the Chief Administrator her willingness to pay the entire amount due, she again failed to avail of the opportunity afforded to her to do so. It is apparent, therefore, that the entire exercise, on the part of the petitioner now, is but an attempt to profiteer, keeping in view the great escalation in the price of residential sites in Chandigarh, which now far exceeds the total amount payable as the sale/lease price of such sites.

Such being the situation, no occasion is provided here for granting to the petitioner the relief claimed. This writ petition is accordingly hereby dismissed and in the over-all context of the; circumstances herewith. Rs. 1,000/- as costs.