IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11496 of 1999 Date of decision: 30.04.2010 Smt. Dayal Kaur (deceased) wife of Manjit Singh, resident of House No.1050, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, through her LRs (i) Onkar Singh son of late Manjit Singh; (ii) Inderjit Singh son of late Manjit Singh; (iii) Gurcharan Singh son of late Manjit Singh and (iv) Harjinder Singh son of late Manjit Singh, all residents of House No.1050, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh ….Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Chetan Slathia,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel, for Chandigarh Administration-respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the cancellation of allotment of a plot made on a cryptic statement issued by the Estate Officer on 21.11.1994 that the re-transfer of the site under Section 21-A of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules of 1973 had been considered and rejected as the same was not in conformity with Rule Civil Writ Petition No.11496 of 1999 - 2 - 21-A. The rejection of allotment has come about after the petitioner had originally defaulted in making the payment within the stipulated time that resulted in resumption of the plot which later on an application for allotment afresh in terms of Rule 21-A was considered favourably with direction to make some payments. Before adverting to the details of payments, it has to be noticed that subsequent to his application and before orders were passed, the petitioner had applied sanction for building plans which had been approved and a construction had also come about between the years 1992 and 1994 when a ground floor plus two floor construction had been made. 2. The letter detailing outstanding had been issued by the Chandigarh Administration on 06.02.1990 requiring the petitioner while considering his application for re-allotment that the drafts which the petitioner had given should be revalidated totalling a sum of Rs.82,253.23. To the letter written on 06.02.1990, it appears the petitioner had made the payment but still complaining of a delay in making the payment, notice was issued on 14.03.1990 demanding an arrear of 20,490 to be paid within a fortnight. The amount of Rs.20,490/- appears to have been paid along with the letter dated 05.04.1990 only in part and when the petitioner was making a request for payment of the balance within 3 months, the subsequent payment which was still due was tendered by the petitioner on 19.04.1990 through a draft for Rs.6,490/-. The petitioner had claimed by a letter dated 15.05.1990 that he had liquidated the entire arrears and requested for retransfer of the site. The administration waited for more than 1½ years before it Civil Writ Petition No.11496 of 1999 - 3 - complained yet again by a letter dated 04.10.1991 that an amount of Rs.1,460/- was still due as representing interest on the late payment. This again was required to be paid within a fortnight. The amount was tendered through a draft dated 30.12.1991 along with the letter dated 30.12.1991. This was again found as deficient when the administration wrote on 11.01.1992 that an amount of Rs.1,013/- had still fallen due requiring the amount to be paid within fortnight. The amount was paid along with the letter dated 12.10.1992. It can be noticed that every time when the amount was calculated and directed to be paid, the petitioner had been making some delay for a few days and that is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Administration to bring home the justification for cancellation of the request and as a raison-d-etre for the passing of the impugned order. If it is any large amount that fell due, the extraordinary consequence of a refusal to apply the discretion provided under Section 21-A could have been well justified but in a case where the complaint by the administration was for non-payment of amounts in the range of 1,500 to 1,000 and when these amounts were said to represent interest for delayed payments, such payments when they are made beyond time, ought to have been either rejected. If it was accepted, the question of claiming interest on such interest simply did not arise. Even otherwise, when the petitioner was submitting his building plan and when the approvals had been granted, on the basis of which the petitioner had raised a ground floor plus two floor construction, it will be grossly inequitable to take a decision to reject the request 4 years later especially after the construction was completed. Civil Writ Petition No.11496 of 1999 - 4 - The impugned order is unjust and would require to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed. 3. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.04.2010 sanjeev