IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18277 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.10.2010 Harinder Singh Jagdev …..Petitioner versus Chandigarh Administration and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash orders dated 10.4.1990 (P4), 21.2.1995 (P5), 13.12.1995 (P7), 5.5.2004 (P8) and 4.8.2010 (P12). Heard counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the records that father of the petitioner, namely, Ajmer Singh Jagdev was allotted a booth site No.14, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh on lease hold basis for a price of ` 2,61,000/-. Allotment letter was issued on 14.4.1988 (P1). Father of the petitioner deposited 25% of the amount towards price of the booth, however, he failed to make payment of rest of the amount. Condition No.8 of the allotment letter reads thus:- “8. In the event of non-payment of any instalment of premium or rent by the 10th of the month following the month in which it falls due or such extended period as may be allowed by the Estate Officer but not exceeding three months Civil Writ Petition No.18277 of 2010 in all from the date on which the instalment was originally due, the Estate Officer, may issue a notice to the lessee calling upon him to show cause as to why the lease may not be cancelled and the site resumed and the amount already paid forfeited to the Government.” Instead of making payment of the amount, father of the petitioner moved an application in the year 1989 with a prayer to extend period for making payment. Thereafter the authorities sent a notice to the allottee in the year 1990, to make payment, instead of doing that, even at that stage, father of the petitioner wrote a letter (P3) making an offer to deposit the amount in lump sum. For committing default in making payment, lease was cancelled on 10.4.1990. Amount equivalent to 10% of the premium plus ground rent and interest etc. was ordered to be forfeited. The allottee went in appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 21.2.1995. Reading of the order indicates that counsel for the allottee undertook to make payment of the balance amount by 7.3.1995. Concluding portion of the appellate Court’s order reads thus:- “5. In view of the commitment of the counsel for the appellant I set aside the impugned orders restore the site to the appellant subject to the condition that part payment is made on 7.3.95 in the Lok Adalat and the remaining alongwith forfeiture of 2% shall be paid by 31st March, 1995 failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative. The penalty on the last instalment is however waived off. Announced. Parties be communicated.” It was specifically stated that if the allottee fails to make payment on 7.3.1995 in the Lok Adalat and the balance amount, along with forfeiture of 2% upto 31.3.1991, the Estate Officer’s order cancelling lease shall become operative. The allottee failed to make the payment as undertaken by his counsel, rather a revision petition was filed in the year 2 Civil Writ Petition No.18277 of 2010 1995 for modification of the order, mentioned above, with a prayer that time to make payment of the balance amount be extended. Revision petition was allowed vide order dated 6.12.1995, by taking lenient view in the matter, the lease was restored and subject to a condition that the entire outstanding amount along with 2% forfeiture amount shall be deposited by 2.1.1996. It was further ordered that in case the allottee fails to make payment, order passed by the Estate Officer shall become final. Again, the order passed was not complied with. The allottee kept mum for many years and then moved an application in the year 2003 for review of the order earlier passed, wherein it was again stated that the allottee was ready to make payment of the entire outstanding amount at that time. However, the review application was dismissed being not maintainable on 5.5.2004. The allottee kept mum, did nothing, orders mentioned above were not challenged before this Court. It is case of the petitioner that allottee died in the year 2009 and thereafter, he came to know about the cancellation order. Hence, this writ petition. We are of the opinion that the attitude adopted by the allottee, through whom the petitioner is claiming the property, in dispute, was totally unreasonable. Allotment was made in the year 1988. After depositing 25% of the amount towards price, rest of the amount was not paid for more than two decades. To the contrary, the allottee continued to use the property, in dispute. It is a case where no equitable relief can be given to the petitioner. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 07.10.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3