Sanjiv Kumar vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing the orders Annexures P1 to P3 vide which the booth plot alloted to the petitioner has been resumed on the ground of nonconstruction and the appeal as well as the revision petition filed by him have been dismissed.

The record produced by Shri Rupinder Khosla shows that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Administrator, New Mandi Townships, Punjab the petitioner applied for allotment of booth site at Morinda. After accepting the highest bid given by him, the respondent No. 2 allotted plot No. 17 to the petitioner. He also directed Naib Tehsildar to hand over possession of the plot to the allottee for the purpose of construction. Condition No. 14 of the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 for auction of the plot as also Condition No. 12 of the allotment letter together with the endorsement made to the Naib Tehsildar, which are relevant for the purpose of decision of this case, are reproduced below :

Condition No. 14 of the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 for auction of the plot.

"The transferee shall complete the building within 2 years from the date of issue of allotment order in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, it any. This time limit may be extended for a period not exceeding 6 months by the Administrator if he is satisfied that the failure to complete the building within the said period was due to reason beyond the control of transferee. Beyond that, sanction of the State Government shall be required on an application for extension of time."

Condition No. 12 and endorsement contained in the letter of allotment.

"The transferee shall complete the building within 2 years from the date of issue of the allotment order. This time limit may be extended for a period not exceeding 6 months by the Administrator if he is satisfied that the failure to complete the building within the said period was due to the reason beyond the control of the transferee. Beyond that, sanction of the State Government shall be required on an application for extension of time.

Copy of the above forwarded to the Naib Tehsildar Colony, Hoshiarpur for information and necessary action.

"Possession of the site may be handed over to the allottee for purposes of construction and actual date of possession may be intimated for record."

The actual possession of the site was delivered to the petitioner on 19.2.1988 in pursuance of the letter dated 9.2.1988, written by Naib Tehsildar Colony, Morinda. However, almost 6 months before the handing over of possession, proceedings under Rule 13 of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner vide notice dated 28.8.1987 on receipt of which the petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 2 that the period of construction may be extended by one year on the ground that he had met with an accident and had suffered serious injuries. After about 2 years of the issuance of first notice, the respondent No. 2 gave notice dated 21.6.1989 for resumption of the plot. The petitioner repeated his request for grant of time by one more year. This was not accepted by the respondent No. 2 who passed the order Annexure P1 dated 9.8.1989 for resumption of the site allotted to the petitioner on the ground on nonconstruction. The appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division and the Financial Commissioner, (Appeal1), Punjab.

The only substantial argument urged by Shri Ravinder Chopra is that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide notice dated 28.8.1987 for cancellation of the allotment on the allegation of nonconstruction are liable to the declared without jurisdiction because the same were initiated before the expiry of 2 years period specified in the auction notice and the allotment letter. Shri Chopra submitted that possession of the site was handed over to the petitioner on 19.2.1988 and, therefore, the deadline for raising the construction was 18.2.1990. However, 5 months before the expiry of 2 years period, the respondent No. 2 initiated action for resumption of the site in complete disregard of the statutory provisions. Learned Counsel also submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner on 18.9.1987 and 17.7.1989 seeking extension of time for raising the construction cannot be used against him because the proceedings for resumption of site could not have been initiated before 18.2.1990. The learned Deputy Advocate General justified the action of the respondent No. 2 to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 13 of 1960 Rules on the ground that the petitioner had failed to complete the construction within 2 years from the date of allotment. Shri Khosla submitted that the failure of the petitioner to complete the building even after the issuance of notice dated 28.8.1988 is sufficient to prove that the petitioner was not willing to comply with the conditions of allotment and, therefore, the impugned orders should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments and are of the opinion that the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. If we apply the rule of literal interpretation for construing condition No. 14 of the auction notice and clause 12 of the allotment letter, it may be possible to agree with Shri Rupinder Khosla that the timelimit of 2 years specified therein commenced from the date of issue of letter of allotment. However, we are not inclined to apply this rule because it will lead to anomalous and absurd results. There can be no denying that the construction over the site allotted by the respondents could be made by the transferee only after getting possession thereof. The handing over of possession of the site/plot may be delayed due to various reasons beyond the control of the transferee. In a given case, delay may be entirely attributable to the allotting authority or the officials working under it. In another case, both the parties may contribute to such delay. If the rule of literal interpretation is applied to the conditions of auction and letter of allotment, then the transferee will be deprived of the property on the ground of nonconstruction even before physical possession of the plot is handed over to him. Therefore, it is necessary to give a rational and reasonable interpretation to the conditions of auction and the letter of allotment. In other words, it will have to be held that the period of two years commences from the date possession of the site is handed over the transferee.

So far as this case is concerned, it is an admitted fact that possession of the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner on 19.2.1988 and the proceedings for resumption were initiated more than 5 months prior to that. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioner vide notice dated 28.8.1987 was without jurisdiction. As a logical consequence, it has to be held that the order of resumption passed by the respondent No. 2 is null and void. For the same reason, we hold that the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authority are nullity.

In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the orders Annexures P1 to P3. However, liberty is given to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for resumption of the site if the petitioner fails to raise construction within two years and while calculating the period of 2 years, the respondents shall be entitled to include the period from 19.2.1988 i.e. the day on which possession was handed over to the petitioner to 9.8.1989 i.e. the date on which order of resumption was passed.