C.W.P No. 12705 of 2001 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 12705 of 2001 (O & M) Decided On : 10.03.2009 Surinder Kaur Chadha ...Petitioner versus The Princ. Secy. and others ...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. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Thiara, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 06.01.1994 (Annexure P-2), 21.01.1995 (Annexure p-&) and 01.06.2001 (Annexure P-10), whereby Plot No. 3151, Sector 71, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali allotted to her on 20.02.1990, has been resumed and her appeal/revision against the said orders have been dismissed. The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot on 20.02.1990 subject to payment of Rs.59,499/-. The petitioner C.W.P No. 12705 of 2001 (O & M) -2- paid 25% of the allotment price at that time and the balance 75% was required to be paid in six half yearly installments with interest @ 12½ % per annum. Notwithstanding the time schedule prescribed in the allotment letter for payments, it is the conceded position that the petitioner did not pay even a single installment towards 75% sale price. The Estate Officer, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, after issuing a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, passed the resumption order on 06.01.1994. After a period of more than three years, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 17.04.1997 through some attorney. The said attorney is stated to have deposited the principal due amount during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority, besides noticing the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal, also took cognizance of the fact that even at the time of deciding the appeal no payment towards the penal interest and other dues was made, dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 21.01.1999. The petitioner preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 01.06.2001, after observing as follows : “ I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, Sh.Pirthi Singh, Senior Law Officer (SLO) on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record of the case placed during the course of hearing. The Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner C.W.P No. 12705 of 2001 (O & M) -3- is a widow of an army officer and due to financial position she could not pay the installments of the price of plot. He further stated that she had deposited an amount of Rs.80,000.00 on 13.12.96, in order to clear the outstanding amount together with interest/penalty etc. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the ground of cancellation no longer survives and cancellation order passed by the Estate Officer deserves to be revoked. On the other hand, Sh.Pirthi Singh, SLO contended that in this case the petitioner had failed to deposit all the 6 installments which fell due between 1990 to 1993. When there was no response from the allottee, the Estate Officer cancelled the allotment. ACA has pointed in her order that the balance amount deposited by the appellant after cancellation of the plot, has been accepted conditionally. It is to be noted that the amount of Rs.80,000.00 deposited in December, 1996 was paid by one Sawinder Singh. Later, the petitioner appointed Sh. Rambir Kumar as her G.P.A on 11.03.1997 i.e after more than three years when the said plot was cancelled by the Estate Officer. ACA had observed in her order that this appears to a case of underhand sale as pointed out by counsel of PUDA”. C.W.P No. 12705 of 2001 (O & M) -4- Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the impugned orders perused. As is discernible from the revisional order, after the resumption of her plot, the petitioner's case was firstly pursued by one Sawinder Singh and later on one Rambir Kumar became her 'G.P.A'. The revisional authority has rightly observed that the G.P.A's are not the petitioner's relatives and are buyers or property dealer who have entered into some under hand sale. The petitioner has failed to explain as to why strangers have been chosen to be her power of attorney holders. Similarly, she has not filed the desired affidavit as directed on 02.02.2009 as to who has deposited the balance allotment price after passing of the resumption order. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the petitioner never intended to honour the agreed terms and conditions, no case for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. MARCH 10, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE