http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARHADMN. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANAGING SOCIETY, GOSWAMI, GDSDC

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1759            1996 SCC  (7) 665  1996 SCALE  (2)126

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      The Chandigarh  Administration allotted 10.5 acres of land  to the  Managing Society,  Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan   Dharam  College,  Chandigarh  (The  Society), respondent in  the appeal  herein, by  the letter dated June  21,   1975.  The   Estate   Officer,   Chandigarh Administration, on March 15, 1991, directed the Society to pay  a sum  of Rs.1,74,690/-, the difference between the ground rent already paid by the Society and the one which  was  payable  under  the  statutory  rules.  The Society challenged the notice by way of a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court and the demand notice was quashed. This  appeal by the  Chandigarh Administration is against  the judgment  of  the    High  Court  dated October 22, 1991.      The land  was alloted  to the society for a period of 99 years at the rate of Rs.10/- per square yard with ground rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per acre per annum. The  allotment  to  the  Society  was  subject  to  the provisions of  the capital  of Punjab  (Development and Regulation) Act,  1952 (the  Act) and  the rules framed thereunder. The  Chandigarh  Lease-hold  of  Sites  and Buildings Rules, 1973 (the rules), framed under the Act were enforced with effect from August 20, 1973. Rule 13 of the rules is as under :      "13. Rent  and Consequences of non-      payment.   In   addition   to   the      premium, whether in respect of site      or building,  the lessee  shall pay      rent as under :      i)   Annual rent shall be 2-1/2% of      the premium  for the first 33 years      which  may   be  enhanced   by  the      Chandigarh Administration to 3-3/4%

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    of the  premium  for  the  next  33      years and  to 5% of the premium for      the remaining period of the lease.      ii) Rent  shall be payable annually      on the  due date without any demand      from the Estate Officer.      Provided that  the  Estate  Officer      may for good and sufficient reasons      extend the time for payment of rent      upto six  months on  the  whole  on      further payment  of  6%  per  annum      interest from the due date upto the      date of actual payment.      iii) If rent is not paid by the due      date, the lessee shall be liable to      pay a penalty not exceeding 100% of      the amount due which may be imposed      and recovered  in the  manner  laid      down in section 8 of the capital of      Punjab (Development and Regulation)      Act, 1952,  as amended by Act No.11      of 1973".      It is  obvious from  Rule 13  reproduced above  that in addition to  the premium  the lessee  under the  Act and the rules has  to pay  annual rent at the rate of 2-1/2%  of the premium for  the first 33 years. The fixation of the premium at the rate of Rs.100/- per acres in the case of the Society was in patent violation of the rules. There is no discretion under the  rules with  the Chandigarh  Administration to fix annual rent  at a rate lower than the one provided under the rules. It  is stated  by the  Chandigarh Administration that while preparing  comments to  the complaint filed by one Dr. M.L. Saini,  Chairman of  the Chandigarh  Recognised Schools Management Association  before the Rajya Sabha Committee, it came to  the notice  of the administration that the fixation of annual  rent, in  respect of  the land  allotted  to  the Society and  some  other  educational  institution,  was  in violation of  Rule 13  of the  rules.  It  was  under  these circumstances that  the mistake  which was  made in the year 1975 was  sought to  be corrected  in  the  year  1991.  The Society challenged  the action  before the High Court on the ground that  there was  no power of review under the Act and the rules  and as  such the  Chandigarh Administration could not review its order after a period of 16 years. It was also contended that  the Chandigarh  Administration was  estopped from passing  an order  prejudicial to the Society specially when the  Society has  constructed  buildings  etc.  on  the allotted land  by incurring huge expenditure. The High Court did not  go into  the question  of  equitable  estopple  and allowed the  writ petition  on the  short ground that in the absence of  any power  of review under the Act and the rules the Chandigarh  Administration could  not have  revised  the annual rent  fixed in  the allotment  letter dated  June 21, 1975.      We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in  quashing the  demand and  the notice  based on the mandatory provisions  of the  rules. There is no question of review in  the facts and the circumstances of this case. The Chandigarh Administration  did not  cancel the allotment. It only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to subsist.  There is nothing on the record to show that the Estate Officer  or any  other authority applied its mind and passed a  conscious order  fixing the  annual rent at a rate lower than  the one  provided under Rule 13 of the rules. We have not  been shown  any power  under the  Act or the rules

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

permitting relaxation  of the  mandatory provisions  of  the rules. A  contract in  violation of the mandatory provisions of law can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The question of equitable estopple does not arise in  this case because there can be no estopple against statute.      We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of  the High  Court. The writ petition filed by the Society before  the High  Court shall  stand  dismissed.  No costs.