Civil Writ Petition No. 262 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 262 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.04.2011 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was allotted Booth No. 4, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh on 23.04.1993. Booth is measuring 40.60 sq. yards and the price thereof was ` 6,50,000/- with yearly ground rent of ` 16,250/-. On receipt of allotment letter, the petitioner was conveyed that covered passage (verandha) in front of the sides of the building shall not be encroached upon and used for any purpose other than public passage. The petitioner claimed that he had paid premium of ` 3,64,029/- and so was entitled to use the space. Besides he also prayed for reducing the price of the booth. Due to non-payment of the instalment, the allotment in favour of the petitioner cancelled on 11.11.1998. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed on 19.01.2000. The revision was also dismissed on 20.07.2000. The Civil Writ Petition No. 262 of 2010 2 petitioner then filed civil suit against which the objection was raised by the respondents in regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court. The petitioner, accordingly, filed an application seeking permission to withdraw this civil suit to file writ petition. The civil suit was dismissed on 06.09.1992 as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The petitioner, thereafter, claims to have made a request for grant of justice for restoration of this site of the booth. When nothing was done, he served a legal notice and ultimately approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 17489 of 2006. This writ petition was dismissed on 28.11.2006 with liberty to seek his remedy for re-transfer of the site under Rule 21-B of the Chandigarh Lease-Hold of Sites and Building (amendment) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioner states that matter was kept pending and not decided by the Administration. The respondents/Administration, in the meantime, amended the rules in the year 2007 when Rule 21-B has been deleted. Without granting opportunity to the petitioner, his request for retransfer of the booth was rejected on 31.01.2007 on the ground that relevant rules had been deleted. The petitioner again filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed on 06.05.2009. The revision filed against this order was also dismissed. The petitioner has again filed the present writ petition to challenge this order. The sole submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that when the petitioner made an application seeking retransfer of this booth, Rule 21-B of the rules was existing on the statute. The subsequent deletion cannot forfeit the right of the petitioner for consideration of retransfer of the booth. Civil Writ Petition No. 262 of 2010 3 In the reply filed, however, the respondents would refer to the details under which this booth was allotted to the petitioner and how this came to be cancelled on 11.11.1998. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the order by filing the civil suit. This civil suit was withdrawn on 06.09.2002 to file a fresh suit. After 4 years, the petitioner choose to file the writ petition. Reference to which has already been made and the same was dismissed on account of delay and latches. Therefore, the petitioner had changed the track to seek retransfer of the booth under Rule 21-B of the rules. The claim of the petitioner against cancellation of the lease was agitated even before this Court and stood finally adjudicated on merits, not once but on more than on occasion even by a civil court. It would be highly unjust now to permit the petitioner to re-agitate the same issue by seeking re-transfer of the same property. The petitioner may have made an application for re-transfer of booth under the rules but that rule has been deleted. The petitioner had not acquired any right to seek re-transfer of the booth which has been curtailed. The petitioner has lost his rights when he lost the legal battle. During pendency of his application, rule has been deleted. His case would have to be considered under the rules in existence when the application came up for consideration. On that date, Rule 21-B did not exist on the statue. The petitioner has not made out any case for re-transfer of the booth. If done it would lead to nullify all the judicial order passed by Courts including this Court. The cancellation was done in the year 1998 against which the petitioner had availed all his remedies upto this Court and Civil Writ Petition No. 262 of 2010 4 had remained unsuccessful. In this background, otherwise also, the case of retransfer even if in the existence of rule was not fairly made out. Delay would be equally material for considering the request for re-transfer of the booth. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he has invited my attention to Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Harbinder Singh Dhillon and another versus Union Territory, Chandgiarh and others VOL.CXLVIII-(2007-4) The Punjab Law Reporter 639, where this Court has expressed some view that in case benefit of allotment of resumed site is allowed to one person, the same cannot be denied to other, who are similarly situated. The ratio of law, as would emerge in this case, may not strictly apply to the facts of the case. Here the petitioner is not pleading any discrimination or denial of equal treatment to him. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. April 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE