CWPNo. 18854 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18854 of 2007 Date of decision: 3.10.2008 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner. Versus The Chandigarh Administration and others. ....Respondents. CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondents. **** Daya Chaudhary, J. Order of cancellation of lease of site dated 7.8.1990 (Annexure P-7), order dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure P-10) passed by appellate authority and order dated 7.9.2005 (Annexure P-12) passed by revisional authority are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner was leased out Booth site No.160, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, in an open auction for 99 years on 13.3.1988 vide allotment letter dated 9.1.1989 at a premium amount of Rs.3,35,000/-. Petitioner deposited 25% of the premium amount. As per terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 9.1.989, when petitioner did not deposit the balance premium amount then a show cause notice was issued on 8.8.1989 under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 as to why lease of site be not cancelled. CWPNo. 18854 of 2007 [2] After affording opportunities of hearing to the petitioner, lease of site of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 7.8.1990 (Annexure P-7). Petitioner filed an appeal before Joint Secretary Finance, Chandigarh Administration against that order of Estate Officer, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.6.2004. Thereafter, petitioner filed a revision petition before Advisor to the Administrator, which was also dismissed vide order dated 7.9.2005. The petitioner has challenged these orders by taking various grounds. Mr.Chetan Mittal, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that cacellation order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner came to know about cancellation of lease in the year 2003 and no order of resumption was ever communicated. The possession of the site remained with petitioner and no proceedings of eviction were initiated against him. Mr. Mittal further argued that petitioner approached the respondent-authorities along with a demand draft of Rs.7 lacs for payment as entire outstanding amount, but he was not permitted to deposit, and appellate authority dismissed the appeal without taking into consideration the bona fide lapse on the part of the petitioner. During the course of hearing of appeal as well as revision petition, even petitioner was ready to deposit the balance amount but the authorities did not consider this fact while deciding the matter. He further argued in support of his contention that report of the process-server was procured and ex-parte order passed against the petitioner, which was never communicated to him. Written statement was filed by respondents which is on record. Mr.K.K.Gupta, learned counsel for respondent-Chandigarh CWPNo. 18854 of 2007 [3] Administration, argued that after depositing 25% of the premium amount and taking possession of the site in question, the petitioner did not pay even a single penny. Even repeated notices were sent for payment of balance instalments and other dues but the petitioner did not bother to deposit the balance amount. It has also been argued by learned counsel for respondents that petitioner, without complying with the provisions of Rule 17(10)) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites & Building Rules, 1973, sold away the booth site in favour of some other person by executing GPA/ WILL etc. and violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for parities and perused the pleadings on record. It is an admitted case that petitioner has not deposited the balance amount of instalments after depositing 25% of the premium amount. The petitioner filed CWP No. 19052 of 2003 in this Court for stay of auction proceeding. This Court vide order dated 8.12.2003 directed that the auction of the property to be not confirmed by the concerned authorities subject to the condition that petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5 lacs with the respondents within three days from the date of order. In spite of issuing directions to deposit Rs.5 lacs, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount and the writ petition was dismissed. Petitioner had committed default in not abiding the terms and conditions of allotment letter as well as violated Rule 17(1) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites & Building Rules, 1973. The lease of the site was cancelled because the petitioner could not transfer the site without following the procedure and without making payment as provided under the rules. However, the petitioner without complying with the said CWPNo. 18854 of 2007 [4] procedure, executed General Power of Attorney /Will etc in favour of Jaswinder Singh. The said Jaswinder also sought 'no objection certificate, from Estate Officer and submitted an affidavit which clearly shows that he has purchased the site. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to affording him an opportunity of hearing is not acceptable as is clear from the record that petitioner as well his wife reported to the Process-server (when he went to serve notice for non-payment of instalments) that they have sold away the site and are not liable to make payment of any instalment and refused to take notice. Moreover, the petitioner was issued show cause notices before cancellation of the lease of site, but he did not respond to any of the notices and, accordingly, cancellation order was passed on 7.8.1990. In view of the facts mentioned above, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (Daya Chaudhary) Judge Judge October 03, 2008 raghav Whether to be referred to Reporter? ..........Yes/No