JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for quashing Annexure P-1 to P-3 and to restore the plot.
2. A shop-cum-flat bearing No. 134 in New Mandi Township Moga was auctioned on 29.6.1973 by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab and the petitioner became the highest bidder in the same by bidding it for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. Accordingly, a letter of allotment in favour of the petitioner was issued in 1973. The petitioner paid 25 per cent of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 8,800/- and possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner did not pay three installments due on 17.5.1974, 17.11.1974 and 17.5.1975. Action was initiated by the 4th respondent for resumption of the plot Under Section 13 of the Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960. By an ordered dated 14.10.1976, passed by the 4th respondent the plot was ordered to be resumed. The money paid by the petitioner in respect of the plot was also ordered to be forfeited. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the Commissioner was also dismissed, on 31.1.1978. A further revision to the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 30.07.1981. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition for setting-aside the order of resumption.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was default in payment of the instalments because the respondents failed to develop the area and therefore the resumption of the plot is illegal. He further contended that he paid 25% of the bid amount and possession of the plot was also delivered to him. The only right of the respondents is to recover the balance amount from him but not resumption of the plot.
4. Admittedly, a plot in New Grain Market at Moga was auctioned on 29.6.1973 and the petitioner became highest bidder. He paid 25 per cent of the bid amount and he was required to pay the balance amount in six equal instalments. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the installments and therefore, the plot was resumed under the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (for short the ‘Act’) Section 13 of the Act reads as follows :-
“13. Forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfers – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Administrator may resume any site or building if the transferee or occupier persistently fails to use such site or building for the purpose for which it is sold, leased or transferred or fails to build upon the site within the period allowed or fails to pay the sale price or lease money of such site or building due under this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) In the event of such resumption of any site or building, any money paid or deposited in respect of such site or building may also be forfeited. Provided that no order of resumption or forfeiture of money shall be passed under this Section without affording the defaulter an opportunity to show cause against it.
(3) The resumed site or building as the case may be, be resold by auction and any loss resulting from such re-sale which is not covered by the amount forfeited under Sub-section (2) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenues from the defaulter.”
5. In Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab,1 (1978 P.L.J. 396) Section 13 of the Act was declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India Thereafter, the State Legislature amended the Act and substituted Section 13 as follows:-
“13. Imposition of penalty for failure to pay consideration money and resumption and forfeiture in certain cases :-(1) If any transferee fails to pay the consideration money or any installment thereof on account of sale of any site or building, or both, Under Section 3, the Administrator may, by notice in writing, call upon the transferee to show cause notice within a period of thirty days why a penalty (which shall not exceed ten per centum of the amount due from the transferee) be not imposed upon him.
(2) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Administrator may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order imposing the penalty and direct that the amount due along with the penalty shall be paid by the transferee within such period as may be specified in the order.
(3) If the transferee fails to pay the amount due alongwith penalty, in accordance with the order made under Sub-section (2) or commits a breach of any other conditions of sale, the Administrator may, be notice in writing call upon the transferee to show cause within a period of thirty days, why an order of resumption of the site or building, or both as the case may be, and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof (which in no case shall exceed ten per centum of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of the site or building, or both) should not be made.
(4) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee in pursuance of a notice under Sub-section (3) and any evidence that he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Administrator may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order resuming the site or building or both, as the case may be, so sold and directing the forfeiture as provided in Sub-section (3) of the whole or any part of the money paid in respect of such sale.”
6. Section 8 of the Amending Act validates all the actions taken under the old Act. This amending Act was introduced by the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Amendment and Validation Act, 1981.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings for resumption were taken Under Section 13 of the Amending Act which was struck down as ultra vires. Therefore, the orders in question are liable to be set aside. As already observed Section 8 of the Amending Act deals with the validation of the actions taken under the old Section 13 of the Act. If the action taken by the authorities is not inconsistent with the new provisions then the resumption proceedings be not interfered with. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the proceedings initiated for resumption of the plot are not in any way inconsistent with the provisions of amended Section 13. The petitioner was given a notice of show cause why penalty should not be imposed and why resumption proceeding be not initiated. Reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay the installments. Inspite of the opportunity being given to the petitioner, he did not pay the amount. Thereafter, only the resumption order has been passed and plot was taken possession of. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Amending Act are in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the amended Section 13. The petitioner is at fault and he has not paid the installments inspite of the opportunities being given to him. The authorities are left with no option except to resume the plot. I do not therefore, find any grounds warranting interference with the order of resumption.
8. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
