IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13662 of 2009
Date of Decision: 03.09.2009
Amarjeet Kaur Brar
Petitioner
Versus
The Chandigarh Administration and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner
.....
Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral)
The petitioner was allotted booth No.8 in Sector 42 Chandigarh
on 21.2.1995, for an amount of Rs.9,60,000/-. The petitioner paid 25% of
the premium amount within the stipulated period. Allotment letter was
issued on 29.3.1995. Rest of the amount was to be paid in three
installments on 21.2.1996, 21.2.1997 and 21.2.1998. When amount was not
deposited, respondents sent a notice under Section 12(3) of the Chandigarh
Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (in short the Rules), for
resumption of the booth, for non-payment of the premium amount, in time.
More than 15 opportunities were given to the petitioner from
24.4.1996 to 1.9.1999, to pay the lease amount, so that notice can be
discharged, however, the petitioner failed to do that and also failed to
furnish any cogent reason not to pay an amount of Rs.13,13,284/-, which
has become due by that time. Having no option, the Estate Officer passed
an order on 22.9.1999(P1), cancelling lease of the site in question. Penalty
Civil Writ Petition No.13662 of 2009 2
was also imposed. The petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed on
6.10.2005. The petitioner challenged the orders, mentioned above, in
revision, which was allowed on 22.2.2006, resumption order was set aside,
the petitioner was directed to clear all the dues within three months, failing
which, it was observed that order passed by the Estate Officer shall become
operative. Nothing was done, amount was not deposited upto 17.10.2008,
when the respondents sent a notice to the petitioner, under Section 5 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short
the Act), ordering her ejectment. She went in appeal, which was dismissed
in default on 20.8.2009 (P5). She also filed review petition before the
Advisor, U.T. Chandigarh, which was also dismissed on 19.11.2008 (P6).
Hence, this writ petition.
At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner is ready to make payment of the entire amount or may be the
market price, if site is restored to her.
This Court feels that act and conduct of the petitioner is such
that she is not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. It is apparent from the records that, as on today, the litigation is
being fought through someone else. This Court has reasons to say so
because this writ petition has been filed through an attorney, in whose
favour power of attorney was executed on 13.5.2005, copy of which has
been placed on record, which clearly indicates that it is virtually a sale in
favour of the above said person/ attorney.
Otherwise also, on merits, the petitioner has no case
whatsoever. It is apparent form perusal of the order passed by the Estate
Officer that when the petitioner failed to make the payment of the premium
amount in time, as many as 15 opportunities were given to her within a
Civil Writ Petition No.13662 of 2009 3
period of three years to make the payment, she failed to do so. She went in
appeal, which was dismissed on 6.10.2005, by observing as under:-
“The undersigned has taken into consideration the
arguments put forth by both the parties. The undersigned finds
that the auction in this case took place on 21.2.1995 and the
appellant has paid initial 25% amount of the premium for
getting the allotment letter issued and, therefore, at one stage
Rs.29,000/- which even does not represent the first installment
which was due on 21.2.1996. Physical possession in this case
was taken by the appellant on 27.4.1995 and the appellant is
using the property for the last more than 10 years without
making any payment of lawful does to the Estate Officer, U.T.,
Chandigarh. This would show that the appellant is regularly
earning income from the property for the last more than 10
years without making any payment of Govt. dues. Further, the
appellant wants to get the property restored at the price which
was prevalent in 1995 after a period of 10 years from the date
of auction. Today also, the appellant has not made any
specific offer to clear the entire outstanding amount nor has
tendered any amount today in this Court. Therefore, the
undersigned finds that this is not a fit case where the property
should be restored to the appellant. Taken into consideration,
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appeal is found to be without any merit and is hereby
dismissed.”
Perusal of the order, extracted above, indicates that even the
appellate authority gave an opportunity to the petitioner, to deposit the
Civil Writ Petition No.13662 of 2009 4
amount, however, she failed to give any undertaking that she will pay the
entire amount within a specified period. Not only this, the revisional
authority did favour to her, set aside order of resumption on 22.2.2006,
subject to a condition that she should pay the entire premium amount within
a period of three months, failing which, it was ordered that the Estate
Officer’s order shall become operative. Even then nothing was done. She
kept on sleeping till ejectment order was passed on 17.10.2008. Even in
appeal, she was not serious, which was dismissed by the Additional District
Judge on 20.8.2009, for non-prosecution. That order has become final. If
that is so, no relief can be given to the petitioner because ejectment order
had attained the fianlity.
It is a case where the Chandigarh Administration has made all
out efforts to get payment from the petitioner. It has also come on record
that the petitioner is in possession of the booth, in question, from 1999, she
is getting income from the same but at the same time, she has failed to pay
the legal dues to the Chandigarh Administration. Such like attitude is
absolutely not justified. Furthermore, as has been observed earlier, it
appears that the site has been sold to a person, who may have purchased the
same in distress. No benefit can be given to such like individual.
Dismissed.
03.09.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge