LPA 277 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No.277 of 2009
Date of decision 17 .8.2009
Manjit Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Vikas Jain,Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondents
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is
directed against order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in CWP No. 2679 of 2009. The appellant by filing the writ
petition has claimed for quashing of resumption order and other orders
passed in appeal and revision by the authorities of the Chandigarh
Administration in respect of Booth No. 21 in Sector 44 C&D, Chandigarh.
It has come on record that the petitioner participated in the open auction and
being the highest bidder at Rs. 15,10,000/- he was allotted the aforesaid
booth. The allotment letter dated 2.2.1999 (P.1) was issued which stipulated
that after payment of 25% of the premium amount the balance 75% was to
be paid within a period of 30 days of the date of auction without any interest
or in three equal instalments alongwith interest @ 10 percent p.a. The
instalments were to be deposited on 10.1.2000, 10.1.2001 and 10.1.2002.
LPA 277 of 2009 2
The appellant failed to deposit either of the three instalments. The repeated
notices issued to him on 25.10.2000, 15.6.2001 and 8.4.2002 were not even
attended to much less tendering any explanation to disclose the hardship or
the circumstances which prevented him from depositing the instalments.
The indifferent attitude of the appellant eventually lead to the passing of the
order dated 24.3.2003 cancelling his lease hold rights and initiating further
proceedings for his eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal
before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory Chandigarh which was
dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2004 (P.4). A perusal of the order shows
that despite default in making payment of instalments on the part of the
petitioner, the appellate authority granted him two opportunities to deposit
the instalments alongwith interest and penalty vide order dated 18.5.2004
and 13.7.2004. Some amount was deposited and the demand raised by the
respondent Administration remained outstanding. Accordingly, the appeal
was dismissed.
The appellant engaged the respondents in litigation by availing
the remedy of revision after a delay of three years in the year 2007. One
more opportunity was granted to the appellant by the revisional authority
to clear the entire outstanding dues. The appellant filed an undertaking and
consequently the resumption order was set aside subject to the condition
that he was to clear the entire outstanding dues within two weeks failing
which the order of resumption was to become operative. Being a chronic
defaulter, the appellant again failed to comply with the order and moved an
application to the revisional authority for modification of its order dated
5.3.2007. He sought more time to deposit the outstanding amount. The
LPA 277 of 2009 3
application was dismissed by the revisional authority.
The appellant having engaged the respondents in the long
drawn litigation and in order to avoid payment then approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge after
noticing detailed facts reached the following conclusion:
” As the facts would speak for themselves, the petitioner is a
habitual and incorrigible defaulter who has shown scant respect
for the undue compassion shown by one or the other Authority
in his favour. The petitioner was not sincere or serious to retain
the allotment. Not only that he failed to honour the orders
passed on his own undertakings, he also failed to challenge the
appellate authority’s orders within a reasonable period.
Interestingly, the petitioner did not deposit the due instalments
even when he started earning the rental immediate after
allotment of the booth. In these circumstances, no case of
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is
made out.
Dismissed.”
When the matter came up before us, we had an impression that the
site could be re-allotted to the appellant on payment of current market value
and accordingly issued notice to the respondent- Administration.
Mr. Rajesh Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
has pointed out that there used to be Rule 21 B of the Chandigarh Lease
Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 which postulate re-transfer of the
site to the outgoing transferee on payment of amount equivalent to 10
percent premium originally payable for such property or one-third of the
LPA 277 of 2009 4
difference between the price originally paid and its full value at the time
when application for re-transfer is made whichever is more. According to
the learned counsel Rule 21 B of the Rules has been deleted w.e.f.
31.1.2007 by the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh while
exercising powers under Section 3 read with Rule 22 of the Capital of
Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. Accordingly, the
aforesaid possibility of re-transfer of the plot has also come to an end.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view that no interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
would be called for as the appellant is a chronic defaulter who appears to
think that by engaging the respondents in litigation he can succeed in
obtaining the relief. He failed to pay any of the three instalments after
paying the initial deposit of 25% after the auction in the year 1999. As
noticed, numerous opportunities given to him have not been availed.
Therefore neither in law nor in equity he deserves any relief.
For the reasons afore-mentioned there is no room for admission
of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Jaswant Singh)
17.8.2009 Judge
okg