IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 1181 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 27.01.2009 Iqbal Singh and others ...Petitioners versus Chd. Admn. And others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Rajesh Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 24.11.1999 (Annexure P-4), dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure P-8) and dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-9). Vide the first order, commercial site No. 85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, which was purchased by petitioners No.1 and 2 in an open auction on 18.11.1994, was resumed for non-payment of the due installments, whereas vide subsequent orders referred to above, the said resumption order has been upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. It is not in dispute that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the original allottees, namely, petitioners No.1 and 2 failed to make the payment of the balance installments (after payment of 25% of the price) as a result thereof, the Estate Officer firstly issued Show Cause Notice to them and thereafter, resumed the allotted site. No action was C.W.P NO. 1181 OF 2009 -2- taken against the said order of resumption by petitioners No.1 and 2-the original allottees. Meanwhile, petitioner No.3 appeared on the scene. Though there is nothing on record to suggest so but it appears that respondent No.3 is a property dealer. It further appears that he obtained a General Power of Attorney from petitioners No.1 and 2 and then filed an appeal in the year 2008 against the order of resumption. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, holding as follows : “I have heard both the parties and gone through the record placed on the file. The site was allotted through auction on 18.11.1997. The allottee failed to deposit balance amount of 75% of the premium on due dates. A large number of show cause notices were issued to them on the address available on records, which were not received back undelivered. The lessees informed about there change of address on 25.10.1999, the next notices were sent at the given address but they failed to appear before the Estate Officer. Thereafter, the cancellation order was also sent to the same address. The Estate Officer, therefore, sent the notices/order at the right address. Later on even a press note/Public Notice has been published on 08.12.2002 in the Hindustan Times but nobody made efforts to contact the authority concerned. It becomes C.W.P NO. 1181 OF 2009 -3- clear that the Estate Officer made all efforts to give opportunity of being heard to the allottees, which were never availed by them. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no notice was served to the appellants is not supported by the record as notices were initially sent to the address given from time to time by the allottees. The cancellation proceedings continued before the Assistant Estate Officer for more than 2 years and no effort was made by the allottees. None of these persons, knowing that the three installments are due, tried to deposit any amount with the Estate Officer. Even after the passing of the impugned order on 24.11.1999, none contacted the Estate Officer for more than 8 years. Meanwhile, the site was taken on vacant list, as the same was lying vacant for more than 8 years. Now sudden appearance of the appellants, after a period of 8 years can not be rewarded with revocation of cancellation order as they had forgotten to approach the Estate Officer with regard to this property. It is a case of willful default and holding the site for speculative purposes. Repeated opportunities offered by the Assistant Estate Officer to the allottees were not availed who kept silent for 8 years, can not claim a benefit of their silence in the form of setting aside the impugned order”. C.W.P NO. 1181 OF 2009 -4- The revision petition also met with the same fate and has been dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-9). Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is the conceded position that no installment towards 75% of the balance price was ever paid by the original allottees, namely, petitioners No.1 and 2. They accepted the resumption order and did not challenge the same within a reasonable period. It is only petitioner NO.3, who, prima facie, for speculative purposes, obtained a General Power of Attorney and has unsuccessfully attempted to get the whole matter reopened after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about ten years. In these circumstances, the Appellate and Revisional Authorities were justified in law, as well as, in equity in rejecting the petitioners' claim. The petitioners' reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Jasbir Singh Bakshi vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh” 2004 (3) RCR (Civil) 232, is wholly misplaced as in para 8 thereof, their lordships took notice of the petitioner's conduct and after observing that he does not deserve any sympathy, invoked powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and granted one more opportunity to him to deposit the entire outstanding amount. No such powers are possessed by C.W.P NO. 1181 OF 2009 -5- a High Court nor the facts and circumstances warrant invoking thereof. For the reasons afore-stated, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. JANUARY 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE