IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.11.2008 Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another Appellants Versus Tarlochan Singh and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants Shri C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the respondents ….. Jasbir Singh, J. By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have laid challenge to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.5.2007, directing the appellants to refund the amount, which has been charged by them, on account of conversion charges of Shop-cum-Flat (in short SCF) to Shop-cum- Office (in short SCO), bearing No.76, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh. Vide judgment, referred to above, it was further ordered that amount due, from the respondents, for change of trade to be run in the above said property, be adjusted from the amount to be refunded by the appellants to the respondents. The respondents are the owners of property bearing SCO No.76, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh. In the first instance, above said property was allotted to one Smt.Bimla Devi w/o Shri Ram Gopal on 11.6.1968. In the allotment letter (Annexure P-1), description of the property was given as under:- Sector Serial No. of the site Dimension Area Price Trade 30-C SCO 76 22’x6”x72’-00 180.00 34100/- Printing press- cum-general Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2008 It was also stipulated in the allotment letter that building constructed over the plot allotted, shall be used only for the purpose, for which it was actually sold i.e. Printing Press etc. On 27.7.1998, the original allottee sold the above said property to Shri G.P.Bansal. The respondents purchased SCO No.76, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh on 17.6.2003, for a consideration of Rs.42 lacs, from Shri G.P.Bansal, the second owner, as referred to above. After registration of the sale deed in their favour, the respondents applied for transfer of proprietary rights in their favour in the above said property. Their requested was granted vide order dated 26.6.2003. As per allotment letter, the owner was entitled to run a Printing Press or any other General Trade in the property, in dispute. The respondents wanted to run a Guest House. With a view to get conversion of the ‘trade’ to be run in the above mentioned property, the respondents moved an application to the appellants along with a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- towards conversion charges. In response to their request, the respondents got a letter, stating therein that property, in question, was in fact, Shop-cum-Flat, as such, the respondents were required to first get it converted into Shop-cum-Office and only then the ‘trade’, to be run in the property, in question, can be changed. The respondents, by writing a letter, brought it to the notice of the appellants that they had purchased a Shop-cum-Office. Property, in dispute, was not Shop-cum-Flat, as stated by the appellants, as such, they were not obliged to pay any conversion charges, on that account. When repeated requests made by the respondents failed to yield any result, they, under protest, deposited an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- with the appellants towards conversion of the property, in dispute, from SCF to SCO. In their 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2008 letter dated 23.12.2004 (P-12), it was specifically stated by the respondents that they had deposited the amount, in dispute, to avoid any delay and if in future, it was found that amount was not recoverable from them, it be adjusted towards conversion fee of First and Second Floor of the above said property into a Guest House. After deposit of money by the respondents, their building plan was approved. They were allowed to change nature and use of the property, in question. The respondents then sent a letter/ notice to the appellants to refund amount, which has wrongly been recovered from them. They failed to get any response, which compelled them to file a writ petition in this Court, which was allowed in their favour, vide the impugned order. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that as per Zoning Plan and the Control Sheet, site bearing No.76, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh was earmarked for SCF, however, due to some inadvertent mistake, the property was wrongly shown as SCO in an allotment letter dated 19.6.1968 (P-1). He further argued that now, the above said mistake has been rectified and on account of conversion with regard to nature of the property, amount due was rightly recovered from the respondents. By stating as above, he argued that the learned Single Bench has failed to notice the contents of Zoning Plan and the Control Sheet, as such, judgment under challenge, cannot be sustained. He prayed that appeal be allowed, judgment under challenge, be set aside. After going through the paper book and hearing counsel for the appellants, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment, under challenge. It is an admitted fact that originally, on 11.6.1968, the property was allotted to one Smt.Bimla Devi w/o Shri Ram Goptal, showing it as Shop-cum- Office. Above said fact is evident from the contents of allotment letter (P- 3 Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2008 1). It is also not in dispute that the original allottee sold the property in question to Shri G.P.Bansal on 27.7.1998, showing it as SCO. Thereafter, the respondents also purchased the above said property by treating it as SCO vide sale deed dated 17.6.2003 from Shri G.P.Bansal, for a consideration of Rs.42 lacs. After getting sale deed in their favour, they moved an application with the appellants for transfer of proprietary rights in the above said property, in their favour. Their application was allowed, vide letter dated 26.6.2003 (P-4). In the above said letter also, the property was shown as SCO and not SCF, as has now been alleged by the appellants before us. The property was originally allotted for setting up a Printing Press/ any other general trade. When the respondents moved an application for change of the trade, to be conducted in the above said property, they were told by the appellants that first of all they were required to get converted nature of the property from SCF to SCO and only thereafter change in trade can be sanctioned in their favour. The respondents controverted the above said directions by the appellants, however, under pressure, they were made to pay an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. It is apparent from the letter dated 23.12.2004 (P-12) that the above said amount was deposited by the respondents virtually under protest. Facts mentioned above, clearly indicate that had the respondents not applied for change of trade, the authorities may not have detected their alleged bonafide mistake. It is very strange that the officials of the appellants can contend after a period of more than 35 years that the property in dispute, was wrongly shown as SCO in the allotment letter dated 11.6.1968. The plea taken appears to be an after thought. Prior thereto also, the property was sold and transferred in the name of second owner Shri G.P.Bansal. Further transfer, in favour of the respondents, was also 4 Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2008 approved by the authorities on 26.6.2003. At no time, any objection was raised, no notice was sent to the original owner, second owner or to the respondents to correct the alleged bonafide mistake. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellants had failed to show as to whether any action was initiated against the officer, who has wrongly issued the allotment letter. The respondents are bonafide purchasers. In the allotment letter, the subsequent sale deeds and other documents, which were available to them, the property was shown as SCO, they paid the price and purchased the same and now at this stage, we will not allow the appellants to turn back and say, to the detriment of the respondents, that the property was in fact, earmarked for SCF and it is not SCO. We feel that at this stage, appellants are estopped from raising any such like objection. In view of facts mentioned above, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 21.11.2008 (T.S.THAKUR) gk CHIEF JUSTICE 5