Kuldip Bassi vs Executive Officer,Notified Area Committee

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra (U.T.) Chandigarh on 13.8.1992, whereby booth site purchased in open auction was resumed and the amount deposited forfeited.

The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held on 7.1.1990 for the purchase of booth site No. 789, Motor Market and Commercial Complex, Mani Majra. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 76,000/- towards 25% of the cost of the site. The balance 75% was to be deposited in three annual equated installments. However, the petitioner did not deposit any of the three equated annual installments in spite of numerous show cause notices. Subsequently, an order was passed by the Executive Officer of the Notified Area Committee, resuming booth site No. 789 and forfeited whole amount deposited in exercise of powers conferred under Clause 7 of the letter of allotment. The said relevant clauses from the letter of allotment read as under :-

1 to 6. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

In case the installment is not paid by the 10 following the month in which it falls due, a show cause notice shall be served calling upon the allottee to deposit the installment and to show cause why penal interest @ 15% P.A. on the amount of installments should not be charged from him. If he fails to comply with the terms of Show Cause Notice, the President of the Committee shall proceed to take action for resumption of plot without any further notice. However, in exceptional circumstances, the President may grant extension for payment of the installment with penal interest @ 15% P.A. for a period not exceeding six months in all. 8 to 9. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

If at any stage the transferee(s) due to certain compelling circumstances, would like to surrender the site, he/she/they shall be allowed to do so with prior permission from the President of the Committee and the surrender would be subject to forfeiture of 10% of the amount out of 25% of the cost paid at the fall of the hammer. The interest amount recovered upto the date of surrender shall not in any case be refunded.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in terms of condition 7, it is the President of the Notified Area Committee, which is competent to take action for resumption of plot, whereas the action has been taken by Executive Officer. It is also argued that though, there is power of resumption of booth of the site, but there is no power of forfeiture of the amount deposited. Therefore, the action of the respondents in forfeiting the entire amount deposited by the petitioner is not sustainable.

In a short reply filed, the stand is that, vide resolution dated 10.5.1990, the powers of the Committee have been conferred upon the Executive Officer under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It is also mentioned that powers have been delegated to an Executive officer as contained in Schedule I of Punjab Municipal Executive Officers Act, 1931.

We have heard learned counsel of the petitioner and find no merit in the argument that the Executive Officer was not competent to resume plot. The Notified Area Committee has passed a resolution, delegating the powers of the Committee to the Executive Officer. Once the powers have been delegated to the Executive Officer, he was competent to initiate action, which as per the letter of allotment has been conferred upon the President of the Notified Area Committee. Still further, admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the balance installments in spite of long lapse of time. Therefore, we do not find any case made out for setting aside resumption on the basis of argument raised.

However, we find merit in the argument that there is no power of forfeiture of the amount deposited. Clause 10 deals with the forfeiture of 10% of the amount out of 25% of the amount paid in case the allottee is to surrender the site. Apart from such Clause 10, there is no power of forfeiture of any amount deposited.

In view thereof, we find that forfeiture of the entire amount of Rs. 76,000/- is not contemplated in terms of letter of allotment there being no other statutory rules, governing the allotment of booth sites.

In view thereof, we allow the present writ petition partly by setting aside the forfeiture of entire amount of Rs. 76,000/-. 10% of the amount out of said Rs. 76,000/- alone could be deducted. The remaining amount along with 6% P.A. simple interest will be refunded to the petitioner within three months.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.