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

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  9672 of 2002

PETITIONER: Jasbir Singh Bakshi

RESPONDENT: Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/04/2004

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

G.P. MATHUR,J.  

       This special leave petition has been preferred against the judgment  and order dated 1.4.2002 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the  writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of Advisor to  the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, was dismissed.  

2.      The petitioner was allotted a semi-industrial plot bearing No.389 in  Sector 44-D, Chandigarh in an auction held on 25.2.1990 on a total   premium of Rs.12,75,000/- out of which he paid 25% of the amount after the  fall of the hammer.   In terms of the allotment letter dated 26.4.1990, he was  required to deposit the balance amount in three yearly instalments of  Rs.3,64,379/- each by 25th February of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.   By  the same letter, he was authorised to take possession of the plot which was  ultimately given to him on 23.5.1990.   The petitioner did not deposit the  yearly instalments which were due and accordingly notices were issued to  him directing him to deposit the amount along with ground rent.   The  Assistant Estate Officer accordingly passed an order on 12.8.1993 holding  the petitioner to be a defaulter and further imposed 25% penalty on due  amount of ground rent.   Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount, a  second order was passed on 28.12.1994 imposing 100% penalty on due  amount of ground rent.   Finally, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising  powers under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold (Sites and Building)  Rules, 1973, passed an order on 6.11.1996 cancelling the lease of the plot, as  the petitioner did not deposit any one of the yearly instalments which had  fallen due on 25th February of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.  The petitioner  thereafter preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Assistant  Estate Officer before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh.    The Chief Administrator after hearing the parties held that though the  petitioner had taken the possession of the plot on 23.5.1990 but had not  deposited anything towards the balance amount of instalment and as such an  amount of Rs.31.43 lakhs was outstanding against him.    In such  circumstances, the Assistant Estate Officer was justified in cancelling the  lease of the plot allotted in favour of the petitioner.   The appeal was  accordingly dismissed on 10.11.1998.    

3.      The petitioner then preferred a revision before the Advisor to the  Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh under Rule 22 (3) of  Chandigarh Leasehold (Sites and Building) Rules, 1973.   At the time of the  hearing,  an  offer  was  made  by  the  petitioner  that he would deposit  Rs.12 lakhs on the same day.   Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact,  the revisional authority, vide order dated 15.9.1999, set aside the order of  cancellation of lease subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited  Rs.12 lakhs before the Estate Officer on the same day and the balance  amount within six months.  The penalty imposed by the Estate Officer was  also reduced to half.   The petitioner then deposited Rs.12 lakhs and a further

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

sum of Rs.1,60,000/- before the Estate Officer on 15.12.1999.   He also  deposited Rs.20,000/- towards ground rent on 24.2.2000.     

4.      It appears that the petitioner did not deposit any other amount  thereafter and as a result, the authorities again initiated proceedings for  cancellation of the lease and for realization of the amount.   

5.      At this stage, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Court  on 16.7.2001 alleging that the respondents were charging interest at the rate  of 15% and 24% which was contrary to the contractual rate of  interest   as  mentioned in the allotment letter and consequently the order of cancellation  of lease and imposition of penalty was illegal.   The High Court passed an  interim order on 15.10.2001 which reads as under :         "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only one  opportunity may be given to the petitioner to clear the entire  dues.

       In view of the above, notice of motion for 25.3.2002.    The petitioner is directed to approach the respondents to  ascertain the entire amount due and thereafter make the  payment in accordance with the directions issued by the  respondents.

       Stay further proceedings."

However, the petitioner did not deposit any further amount and  consequently the writ petition was dismissed on 1.4.2002.

6.      We have heard Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel for the  petitioner and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.  

7.      The petitioner was allotted plot no.389 in Sector 44-C & D,  Chandigarh in an auction held on 25.2.1990 on a total premium of  Rs.12,75,000/-.   The allotment letter dated 26.4.1990 mentioned the  schedule of payment and he had to pay the balance amount in three equal  instalments of Rs.3,64,379/- each by 25th of February of each succeeding  year and thus the entire amount had to be paid by 25.2.1993.   It was also  mentioned that the annual ground rent for first 33 years was Rs.31,875/-.    The letter authorised the petitioner to take possession of the site which he  promptly took over, but he did not deposit any amount thereafter.   A  number of notices were sent to him but with no avail.   The order passed by  the Assistant Estate Officer on 28.12.1994 whereby the lease was cancelled  shows that repeated opportunities were given to him to deposit the amount.    It was in these circumstances that the lease was ultimately cancelled.  In fact,  the order passed by the Chief Administrator shows that an amount of  Rs.31.43 lakhs had become due from the petitioner towards principal and  interest.   The revisional authority in view of the statement made by the  petitioner that he is ready and willing to pay the outstanding dues in case an  opportunity was given to him, took a sympathetic view and set aside the  order of cancellation of lease and reduced the penalty to half in case a sum  of Rs.12 lakhs was deposited forthwith and the balance amount was  deposited within six months.   The petitioner, no doubt, deposited Rs.12  lakhs on the next day but again defaulted and did not deposit the balance  amount except for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- on 15.12.1999 and  Rs.20,000/- as ground rent on 24.2.2000.  The petitioner made a similar  request before the High Court that only one opportunity may be given to him  to clear the entire dues and taking a sympathetic view of the matter, further  proceedings against the petitioner were stayed on 15.10.2001.   But again the  petitioner defaulted and did not deposit the amount.  

8.      These facts clearly show that the petitioner has only been gaining  time, on one pretext or the other, and is not interested in depositing the  amount.   He got possession of the plot in April 1990 after deposit of only  one-fourth amount.   Though the conduct of the petitioner is such that he  does not deserve any sympathy, we are of the opinion that some more time

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

may be given to enable him to clear the entire outstanding dues.   The  petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner  deposits the entire outstanding dues within three months, the order  cancelling the lease shall stand set aside, failing which it will be open to the  authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.