C.W.P. No. 7554 of 1991. Case: Jaswant Singh Vs Chandigarh Administration and others. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberC.W.P. No. 7554 of 1991
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Arun Jain, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Anand Swaroop, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Adv.
JudgesA.L. Bahri and H.S. Bedi, JJ.
IssueCapital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 - Section 8; Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 - Rules 1, 12(3)
CitationAIR 1992 P&H 150
Judgement DateNovember 14, 1991
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)

Order:

A.L. Bahri, J.

  1. Jaswant Singh petitioner was allotted a commercial site known as SCF No. 3035-3036, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, on leasehold basis in an open auction held on September 28,1975, at a premium of Rs. 1,07,000/-. This allotment was done under the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1973"), As per terms and conditions of the allotment 25% of the premium and also the first installment was paid in time. The second installment of Rs. 35,579/-fell due on September 28,1977, but was paid on October 10,1977, The Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 proceeded to cancel the lease vide order dated November 20, 1978, by imposing 10% forfeiture of Rs. 10,700/-. Copy of the order is Annexure P-1. An appeal was preferred before the Chief Administrator against the aforesaid order which was accepted on February 12,1982, (Annexure P-2). The lease of the site was restored. However, the amount of forfeiture was raised from 10% to 25% and the same was to be paid within 30 days. Against the said order a revision was taken to the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on October 10, 1988, in the order it was noticed that there was no legal provision regarding forfeiture of 25% of the premium. Further revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on March 22, 1991. Copies of these orders are Annexure P.3 and P.4 respectively.

  2. The Chief Administrator had allowed 30 days time to deposit the amount of forfeiture. The petitioner was informed about this order vide letter dated March 4, 1982 by the Estate Officer to make payment of Rs.67681/- within 30 days. On March 11, 1982 the Chief Commissioner in its revisional jurisdiction had stayed operation of order of the Chief Administrator. While disposing of the revision, the Chief Commissioner should have granted fresh time to the petitioner to comply with the order of the Chief Administrator. In spite of that a sum of Rs. 70,000/-was deposited on February 3, 1989 vide receipt No. 3788 (Annexure P.5). In this manner the petitioner claimed to have paid the entire amount to the Administration. The challenge in this writ petition is to the aforesaid orders of the authorities (An-nexures P.1 to P.4).

  3. The grounds taken up to challenge the aforesaid orders of the authorities primarily are:--

    i) The authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to order forfeiture of 25% of the premium.

    ii) That when during...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT