IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.37 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.1.2009 The Estate Officer, Chandigarh Admn., U.T., Chandigarh. -----Appellant Vs. Smt. Raj Rani & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ---- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Chandigarh Administration under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition of respondents No.1 to 4 against order of resumption of plot allotted on lease hold basis for 99 years and forfeiture of 10% of the amount paid on account of non-payment of third instalment. Learned Single Judge allowed the outstanding payment to be made within one month from receipt of certified copy of the order. 2. Case of the original writ petitioners is that they were allotted residential plot on 30.6.1975 and they paid 25% of the premium of the site at the time of allotment. Thereafter, two out of three instalments were duly paid and there was default in third instalment which fell due on 7.6.1978. The original authority passed LPA No.37 of 2009 an order of forfeiture and cancellation of allotment against which the predecessor of original writ petitioners filed an appeal, but he died during pendency of the appeal. The appellate authority allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside of cancellation and reducing the amount of forfeiture. The writ petitioners, however, still preferred a revision petition for setting aside forfeiture. The revision petition was allowed on 4.10.1988 and one month time was given to make the payment. The time expired on 23.1.1989 and application for extension of time was dismissed. The writ petitioners got prepared draft for the amount on 13.2.1989 which was about 20 days later than the time by which the amount was to be paid. 3. Learned Single Judge held that 20 days time should have been extended and cancellation of allotment or forfeiture of amount for the said delay would be too harsh in the circumstances. Learned Single Judge gave one months time from the date of receipt of certified copy, on which the allotment will stand regularized. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the default in payment could not be readily condoned and if the same was to be condoned, the writ petitioners should be required to pay present market price. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.D., HSIDC and others v. M/s Hari Om Enterprises and anothers JT 2008(8) SC 184. It has also been submitted that mere sympathy should not be a ground to exercise the power of judicial review as laid down in Haryana 2 LPA No.37 of 2009 Urban Development Authority and another v. Roochira Ceramics and another (1996) 6 SCC 584. It has further been submitted that there was no error in the order of the Administration in declining to extend time in view of judgment of this Court in Maharani Depinder Kaur Burdwan (W.B.) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh 1996(3) PLR 598. 6. We are unable to accept the submissions made. 7. The judgment in M/s Hari Om Enterprises (supra) does not deviate from the earlier view in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh and others (2004) 2 SCC 130, to the effect that doctrine of proportionality could be invoked as part of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the order was disproportionate to the default and too harsh, the same could be interfered with. It is on application of said principle in the facts of the case concerned that the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave direction for payment of current market price was issued, finding chronic defaults by the allottees. The judgment in Roochira Ceramics (supra) is also distinguishable on facts as there were repeated defaults in the case before the Court. In the present case, the writ petitioners had already deposited 75% of the amount and for the delay in depositing the remaining amount, the appellate and revisional authorities found valid justification. The draft was got prepared by the writ petitioners after delay of 20 days of the time given. No doubt, there was default, but having regard to all the circumstances, the learned Single Judge having held that the default was not chronic or intentional, we do not find any ground to interfere under Clause X of the Letters Patent. 3 LPA No.37 of 2009 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 27, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 4