HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14220 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 **** Balbir Pal Dandyan . . . . Petitioner VS. UT Chandigarh & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pardeep Bhandari, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) {1}. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 05.05.2009 & 10.07.2009 (Annexure P13 & P18, respectively), whereby booth site No.911 at Motor Market and Commercial Complex, Manimajra allotted to him has been resumed and his appeal/revision petition, have also been dismissed. {2}. The above-stated booth site was resumed on the ground of non-payment of the due instalments by the petitioner. {3}. Vide order dated 14.09.2009 this Court permitted the petitioner to purchase the site in question “at the current price”. CWP No.14220 of 2009.doc - 2 – {4}. It may be noticed here that the petitioner’s contention on merits was turned down and the respondents were called upon only on the above limited ground as is apparent from the order dated 14.09.2009 which reads as follows:- “This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside order dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P18) allowing revision petition filed by the respondents against order dated 5.5.2009, vide which, appeal filed by the petitioner against the resumption order of a booth site, was allowed. Record reveals that before resumption of the site, umpteen number of notices were sent to the petitioner, however, he failed to deposit the due amount with the respondents. By taking note of that fact, this fact was tentatively of the view that order passed in revision, is perfectly justified. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioner, on getting instructions from the petitioner, states that the petitioner is in possession of the property and with is a view of save it, he is ready to purchase the site at the current price.” {5}. The respondents were persuaded to agree to the above-stated offer and on instructions it was stated on their behalf on April 6, 2010 that “even the reserved price for persons, who have held the property on leasehold basis, is Rs.45 lacs and the market rate for a free hold, which is not a reserved price, is Rs.1.5 crores.” CWP No.14220 of 2009.doc - 3 – {6}. The petitioner was accordingly given opportunity to purchase the subject booth on leasehold or free-hold basis. {7}. As the petitioner did not accept the said offer, last opportunity was also granted to him vide order dated 01.10.2010 to bring a demand draft of Rs.25 lacs in favour of the Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The petitioner has failed to do the needful and is not inclined to pay the current market price also by the respondents. {8}. In view of the reluctance shown by the petitioner even to pay the current market price, no interference with the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that non-payment of the due instalment is a valid ground to resume the allotted property as recently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GMADA & Anr. v. Manju Jain and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6791 of 2010. {9}. Dismissed. 22.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE