Smt. Saroj Garg and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Smt. Saroj Garg and others through the present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing orders Annexures P1, P2 and P6 vide which plot bearing No. 204 in Sector 29-D, Chandigarh purchased "by the petitioners in auction was resumed by the Estate Officer vide his order dated 16.9.1978 which was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities.

The facts on which the relief aforesaid rests reveal that the petitioners purchased the plot in question in Court auction held on 8.1.1988. This was in pursuance to a decree that was in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank and in execution thereof, the petitioners being the highest bidders were successful in purchasing the same. The Bank had instituted a suit against M/S Mohan Steel Indusries which was initially under the name and style of M/S Khalsa Iron Store. The original allottee of the plot aforesaid was M/S Khalsa Iron Store through its partner Shri Balkar Singh. The plot was purchased from the Chandigarh Administration through general auction. Inasmuch as M/S Khalsa Iron Store failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period, the plot was resumed by the Estate officer, vide his order dated 16.9.1978 and the amount of Rs. 5,820/- being 10% of the premium was forfeited. Aggrieved, the allottee filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator who vide his orders dated 19.8.1980 restored the site on the condition that the construction would be completed by the allottee within six months. Still aggrieved, the allottee filed a revision against the orders of the Chief Administrator to the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration Chandigarh. A plea was raised there that the allottee had submitted the drawings to the Estate Officer for sanction but they had taken enough time in completing the formality and to sanction the plan. It requires to be mentioned here that the order of the appellate authority was conditional and on account of non-construction within the stipulated period, the order of the Estate Officer was to be revived. It is for that reason alone, it appears, that the revision was carried against the order of the Appellate Authority. However, revision came up for hearing before the Chief Commissioner Chandigarh on 2.5.1985 and the allottee was given time for getting the property transferred in the name of Shri Balkar Singh who had become the sole proprietor of M/S Khalsa Iron Store. The plot in dispute in fact was transferred in the name of M/S Mohan Steel Industries with Balkar Singh as its partner. The plot in question was attached in execution of decree passed against M/S Mohan Steel Industries of which Balkar Singh was the partner. It was ordered to be auctioned by the executing Court in execution No. 62 of 1986. The plot was actually put to auction and the petitioners were declared the highest bidders as their bid of Rs. 3,20,000/- was accepted by the Court auctioneer. As no objections were being filed against the auction held on 8.1.1988, the sale in favour of petitioners was confirmed by Sub Judge Chandigarh on 2.3.1988. The sale certificate was granted to the petitioners by the Court on 18.3.1988 and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar on 18.3.1988. Once the petitioners became owners of the property in dispute, they moved an application on 25.3.1988 to the Estate Officer Chandigarh for the transfer of the plot aforesaid in their names and it is only then that they came to know that the site purchased by them stood resumed on account of non-construction and that the previous allottee had filed a revision before the Chief Commissioner which was still pending. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioners moved an application before the Chief Commissioner for impleading them as a party to the Revision Petition. However, the Adviser to the Administrator, exercising the powers of Administrator, declined the said prayer of petitioners and considering the case of original allottees on merits, dismissed the revision on 11.5.1988. It is this order and earlier orders of resumption which, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, have been sought to be quashed.

The cause of the petitioners has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, by way of preliminary objections, it is pleaded that the petitioners have no right to file this petition as they are not bonafide or legal purchasers. It is further pleaded that in consequence of resumption of the plot in question, the ownership of the site vests in the Chandigarh Administration and that being the position, the plot could not be attached or sold by the Court on the basis of Court decree against Mohan Steel Industries Ludhiana.

In so far as the facts are concerned, the same have not been disputed but it has been pleaded that Chandigarh Administration was not a party to the civil suit and, therefore, ownership that was transferred to the petitioners in pursuance to the execution of decree could not be binding upon them.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the view that the cause of the petitioners is meritorious and, therefore, this petition deserves to succeed. It shall be noticed from the order passed by the Revisional Authority, Annexure P6, that the petitioners were not arrayed as party and were thus not heard in the matter and yet the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the appellate Authority were confirmed on the ground that the original allottee had not constructed the site in question even within the time given to it. In all fairness, this opportunity of construction should have been given to the petitioners. The original allottee on account of sale of the plot through Court auction was left with no interest whatsoever and, therefore, there was no question for it to have constructed the plot. The surviving interest was only of the petitioners. Admittedly they were not given any chance to raise construction. Mr. Hemant Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners informs this Court that since possession had already been delivered to the petitioners through Court, they had raised the construction and it is only that sewerage connection and occupation certificate have to be given which are not being given on account of pendency of litigation. The Revisional Authority after impleading the petitioners as party in the litigation concerning resumption of site in question, as indicated above, ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to raise construction and by not giving this opportunity to the petitioners, substantial injustice has been caused. The respondents were, at the most, interested for compliance of the Rules applicable for allotment of various sites in the Union Territory and this object could not possibly be achieved by giving time for construction to a person who had washed off his hands from the property for all times to come.

For the reasons stated above, orders Annexures P1, P2 and P6 are quashed. Inasmuch as the petitioners have already made construction on the site, there is no need to issue any directions to them. The respondents are, however, directed to forthwith give occupation certificate and the sewerage connection to the petitioners. This writ petition is allowed, in the manner indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.