Shri Kulwant Rai vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

A.L. Bahri and V.K. Bali, JJ.—Shri Kulwant Rai challenge in this writ petition orders of the authorities passed under the Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation Act, 1952. The petitioner in auction purchased lease hold rights in site of shop-cum-office in Section 8 on July 2, 1978 for a sum of Rs. 4,77,000/-. As per conditions of the sale, 25% of the amount was paid in advance and the remaining amount was payable in three intalments. First two instalments were paid in time. The third instalment was due on 2-7-81, but there was default. On October 25, 1982, notice was issued to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, to make payment of the third instalment within three months. Bank draft of Rs. 1,20,000/, the amount of the third instalment was sent by the petitioner to the Estate Officer. Vide Annexure P-l, order dated November 29, 1982, passed by the Estate Officer, the plot was resumed, alongwith 10% forfeiture of the auction money and forfeiture of the entire ground rent amounting to Rs. 52,635.73 Appeal filed by the petitioner, was all wed on 8-1-85 vide order Annexure P-2. The plot was restored and the petitioner was allowed to pay the amount within three months with interest. The order of forfeiture of 10% was maintained. Further revision was taken to Advisor to the Administrator, which was disposed of on 8-2-91. Copy of the order is Annexure P-3. The only modification made was that the amount of forfeiture was reduced to 5%. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition

The respondents have contested this writ petition by filing the written statement.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner had deposited the third instalment within the period mentioned in the notice dated 25 10-982. It is worth noticing that order of resumption was passed on November.29, 1982, Annexure P-l within the period of three months as allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 25-10-1882 to make payment. The restoration of the plot was, thus, fully justified in the circumstances stated above. The question for consideration is as to whether the authorities could forfeit any amount already deposited. In our considered view the authorities were not at a 1 justified in doing so and interest at the rate of 10% of the amount due by way of penalty only could be charged for making payment within three months as provided under rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973.

As far as charging of interest is concerned, since there was default in the payment of the instalment the petitioner could be asked to pay interest up to January 10, 1982. However, it was not his fault that the authorities did not encash his bank draft and subsequently the petitioner was asked to make the payment in response to order Annexure p-2 passed by Chief Administrator. As already observed above, since the amount was paid within the period allowed under the notice, the petitioner was not to be made liable for interest for the subsequent period, if the amount of the draft was not encashed by the authorities. Hence, after January 10, 1983, the petitioner is not to be made liable to pay interest. However, from July 2, 1981, to January 10, 1983, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of the third instalment as per rules, In this process, if any excess amount has been charged from the petitioner, the same would be refunded to him.

For the reasons recorded above, this Writ Petition1 is allowed. Orders passed by authorities Annexures P-l to P-3 are modified to the extent that the plot shall stand restored without any forfeiture and the respondents are directed to refund the excess amount of interest, if charged, beyond January 10; 1983. There will be no order as to costs.