Sunshine Industry and Others vs Punjab Financial Corporation

V.K. Jhanji, J.—An industrial plot was allotted to M/s. Sunshine Industry on 15.9.1970 by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, Chandigarh, for a total consideration of Rs. 47,300/-, 10 per cent of which was required to be paid at the time of allotment and the balance was to be paid in six equal instalments. Possession of the plot was delivered on 24.2.1971. First instalment became due on 24.2.1973. M/s. Sunshine Industry (petitioner herein) defaulted in making payment towards the first instalment. Consequently, the plot was resumed vide order dated 17.9.1973. Before resumption of the plot, petitioner had applied to the Punjab Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, for a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for running its industry. As against this, loan of Rs. 1,68,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner. Against the order of resumption which was passed on 17.9.1993, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Chief Administrator and while appeal was pending, a sum of Rs. 13,090/- including interest of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by the petitioner towards the first instalment. Appeal was allowed and the plot was restored on 20.1.1975. This order was received by the alottee on 27.1.1975 in pursuance to which another sum of Rs. 8,825/- was deposited towards second instalment. Meanwhile, the petitioner also defaulted in making payment to the Corporation and for that matter, the Corporation filed proceedings u/s 31 of the Punjab State Financial Corporation Act (for short the Act) which resulted into passing of decree, in execution of which this very plot was attached and ordered to be sold. This order was impugned by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 807 of 1992.

During the pendency of the civil revision, petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 5,92,329/- to the Corporation. On receipt of this amount, counsel for the Corporation made a statement on 31.8.1993 that the claim of the Corporation stands fully satisfied and the Corporation shall not proceed with the execution.

In this civil revision, now the petitioner has made an application u/s 151 of the CPC stating therein that it has now come to its notice that the plot in dispute has since been resumed by the Estate Officer and prayed that the Estate Officer be asked to receive the amount with interest and appropriate order be made directing the Estate Officer to set aside the order of resumption and the restore the plot. Notice of this application was given to the Estate Officer as well as to the Housing Commissioner, Urban Estate. Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, counsel for the Estate Officer has filed a detailed reply to the application/He states that the petitioner is not entitled to any direction in this miscellaneous application as the Estate Officer is not a party to the civil revision. He further states that the plot was resumed again in the year 1980 and appeal against this was filed by one Sukhdev Raj which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator vide order dated 13.12.1983 being not maintainable having been filed by a person not authorised. He also states that it was allotted to M/s. Sunshine Industry through Shri Gian Singh, Sole Proprietor.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that this is not a correct forum where the petitioner can agitate restoration of the plot or setting aside of the order of resumption which was passed in the year 1980. It is true that possession continues to be with the petitioner till date and it had also obtained loan from the Corporation by mortgaging this very property. Their bona fides cannot be doubted because they have paid a sum of Rs. 5,92,329/- against the loan of Rs. 1,59,000/- which they had obtained in the year 1973. The only remedy with the petitioner is to file appeal before the Chief Administrator. Counsel for the Estate Officer! though has contended that the appeal already stood decided and only revision petition is competent, if at all maintainable, yet I am not prepared to accept this contention of learned counsel for the Estate Officer because the appeal was dismissed as having not been filed by an authorised person.

Consequently, this civil revision and the miscellaneous application are disposed of with the direction that in case any appeal is filed before the Chief Administrator within a month from today, the same shall be decided on merits. At the time of decision of the appeal, the Chief Administrator shall keep in view that the petitioner is continuing in possession till date and is running its industry and is prepared to pay the entire amount along with interest and penalty, if any. The delay in filing the appeal shall be condoned.