Naresh Garg vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

Lisa Gill, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of lease of SCO site No. 309, Sector 38 C&D, Chandigarh on account of non-payment of dues after deposit of 25% of the premium. SCO No. 309, Sector 38 C&D, was purchased by Smt. Rajpinder Kaur in an open auction held on 11.12.1998 and after deposit of 25% of the premium i.e. Rs. 7,92,500/- (total premium 31,70,000/-), the allotment letter was issued on 02.02.1999. The lessee had failed to deposit the balance 75% of the premium in three equated annual instalments. After affording sufficient opportunities for deposit of the said amount and on being heard, the site was ultimately cancelled as a last resort, vide order dated 02.04.2003.

The original allottee Smt. Rajpinder Kaur had executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Manjit Singh, which is stated to have been revoked. Another GPA was executed in favour of one Surjit Singh, who further executed sub Power of Attorney to one Mohinder Singh. The said Mohinder Singh is stated to have transferred 50% of his "share" to petitioner No. 1 on 22.11.2005 and 30% of his share transferred to petitioner No. 2 on 12.05.2006 by way of an agreement to sell. Another GPA is stated to have been executed by Mohinder Singh in favour of Harminder Singh Gulati and his wife Gurcharan Kaur. The SCO No. 309, Sector 38 C & D remained a bone of contention and matter of litigation between the said persons and it is averred that ultimately the matter has been compromised with Smt. Rajpinder Kaur withdrawing all the litigation on 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-29) and she executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners.

The appeals filed by the allottee Rajpinder Kaur and one Gurpreet Singh claiming title on the basis of a General Power of Attorney executed by her were dismissed on 24.09.2008. The Revisional Authority remanded the case to the Chief Administrator vide order dated 20.05.2009 and also directed to inquire as to how construction has done after the cancellation. The said orders are not attached with the writ petition. The Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 30.01.2012 dismissed the appeals, which had been remanded back by the Advisor (Annexure P-37). The revision petitions filed by Smt. Rajpinder Kaur through her GPA and by Gurpreet Singh were also dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2013.

It is apparent that the original allottee is nowhere in the picture and the property has been subjected to multiple sales on the basis of various Power of Attorneys, mostly executed after cancellation of the lease. This writ petition has been filed by Naresh Garg and Nirmala Devi claiming to be owners of the property on the basis of General Power of Attorney.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears to us that the petitioners, in this case, have no locus standi to challenge the impugned orders. They are admittedly deriving title to the property on the basis of General Power of Attorney executed by the original allottee Smt. Rajpinder Kaur in their favour. Apart form the fact that there can be no conferring of title through a General Power of Attorney, the original allottee Smt. Rajpinder Kaur could not have conveyed any rights qua the property once the allotment/lease stood cancelled vide order dated 02.04.2003. The petitioners cannot have a better title than the transferor.

The petitioners while entering into this transaction were fully aware of the risk involved in such a speculative and dubious venture, therefore, by virtue of their depositing the property tax or the electricity, water charges etc., they cannot be vested with any right to the said property. Though there is no necessity of going into this issue, but sufficient opportunity had been granted to the allottee to deposit the premium amount even though she herself was bound to have discharged her contractual liability. The lease of the site has been rightly cancelled. The contention of the petitioners that they are ready to deposit the entire amount due cannot be accepted. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi to even make this offer, acceptance thereof, at this stage, after over 14 years, shall amount to the undue, unfair and unjust enrichment of the petitioners at the cost of public exchequer.

Before parting with this case, it is necessary to refer to the direction issued by the Advisor to the Administrator while remanding the appeals to the Chief Administrator for inquiry as to how construction was raised after cancellation of lease. The Chief Administrator has tried to justify the same by observing as under:

From the averments of both the counsels, it is clear that the building was constructed on the site in question when it was resumed. Further, another issue involved is that how the site was constructed after the resumption order The SDO (B), Estate Office, U.T., Chandigarh intimated that building plans of the site in question were sanctioned in the year 1999. Since the possession of the site was handed over after making payment of only 25% of the premium, the appellant started raising construction at the site after taking the possession. The factum of proceeding for cancellation of lease of the site was not within the knowledge of the Building Branch because once the site was resumed it was the duty of the office to initiate eviction proceedings However, the eviction of the lease could not be effected from the site as the appeal and revision petition against the cancellation order were pending for adjudication before the quasi-judicial authorities.

It would be expedient for the respondent-administration to ensure that on passing of such punitive orders, the same should be circulated in the relevant branches in order to prevent such misuse at the hands of unscrupulous persons, where they have been able to raise the building on a commercial site after its resumption. Steps should be initiated for eviction in such cases in the absence of any interim orders staying the resumption/cancellation of lease. Eviction proceedings if not already initiated should be started and taken to their logical end, expeditiously.

This writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.