Ex. Captain Bant Singh vs Chandigarh Administration

R.L. Anand, J.

I am disposing of the is writ petition with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the respondents. ExCaptain Bant Singh Mangat, has filed the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing, Annexure P1, to the extent where direction has been issued to make payment of Rs. 16747/. The petitioner through this petition also wants that the directions be given to the respondents to refund the aforesaid amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

The case set up by the petitioner is that some times in the year 1965, he was allotted plot No. 140, in defence colony, Sector 35A, Chandigarh. As per term No. 11 of the allotment order, the allottee, without the prior permission of the Estate Officer, was not entitled to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer the plot prior to a period of ten years. The petitioner submitted in the petition that because of financial difficulty, he was compelled to sell the said plot. He submitted an application before the Estate Officer for the sale of the plot prior to the expiry of ten years. He was called upon to deposit Rs. 16747/ which he deposited. The case of the petitioner further is that he was not legally required to pay Rs. 16,747/ and the letter, Annexure P1, vide which the petitioner was called upon to deposit this amount is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and that he is entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount.

The writ petition was admitted by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court. No formal written statement has been filed by the respondent.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits at the bar that this petition can be disposed of even without filing of the written statement.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and with his assistance have gone though the record of the case.

The letter Ex.P1, was issued somewhere in the year 1979. The petitioner deposited the amount on 5.7.1979. The writ petition has been filed in the year 1996. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of delay and laches. If the petitioner wanted to file a suit, he could have filed the same within a span of three years i.e. up to 5.7.1982. He has come to this Court after 14 years. Extraordinary relief, in such circumstances, cannot be granted to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Even on merits, it may be stated that the petitioner was allotted a plot at concessional rate and the parties are bound by the terms of the allotment letter. It was not open to the petitioner to sell the plot prior to period of ten years. As per Rule 8C of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rule, 1960, if the allottee wants to sell the plot prior to the fixed period of ten years, he is supposed to pay or deposit 1/3rd of the unearned increase in the value of the plot. It is not disputed that 1/3rd of the unearned increase comes to Rs. 16,747/. The petitioner is bound by the said Rule and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the demand was unjustified. If the petitioner has deposited that amount, he cannot recover it.

Similar point was also considered by the Hon''ble Davison Bench of this Court consisting of Hon''ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sighvi and Hon''ble Mr. Justice M.L. Signal, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1685 of 1996, Dr. Sehdev Gupta v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 25.7.1997 and it was observed that the allottees of such plots are bound and governed by the Rule 8C aforesaid irrespective of the date of its enforcement. Otherwise also, it cannot be said that this Rule is unreasonable. The counsel for the respondents has also invited my attention to the order dated 11.9.1996 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14021 of 1996, Major Jaswant Singh v. Union of Territory, Chandigarh, wherein, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the writ of the person who claimed refund of the amount in the year 1996 when the said amount was deposited in the year 1989. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.