AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukul Mudgal, C.J.
Civil Misc. No. 3169 of 2009
The Prayer in this application filed u/s 5 of the limitation Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C., is for condoning the delay of 79 days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 79 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M., stands disposed of accordingly.
Civil Misc. No. 3170 of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
Learned Counsel for the appellant is permitted to file uncertified copies of all documents.
L.P.A. No. 1190 of 2009
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition, by a learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 10.03.2009, in CWP No. 12705 of 2001.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant was allotted Plot No. 3151 in Sector 71, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, on 20.02.1990, subject to payment of Rs. 59,499/ -. The appellant paid 25% of the allotment price at that time and the balance 75% was required to be paid in six half yearly installments with interest @12�% per annum. Notwithstanding the time schedule prescribed in the allotment letter for payments, it is the conceded position that the appellant did not pay even a single installment towards balance 75% of the sale price. The Estate Officer, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, after issuing a Show Cause Notice to the appellant, passed the resumption order on 06.01.1994.
After a period of more than three years, the appellant preferred an appeal on 17.04.1997 through some attorney. The said attorney is stated to have deposited the principal due amount during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority, besides noticing the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal, also took cognizance of a fact that even at the time of deciding the appeal no payment towards the penal interest and other dues was made, dismissed the appellant''s appeal on 21.01.1999. The appellant preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 01.06.2001, after observing as follows:
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Prithi Singh, Senior Law Officer (SLO) on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record of the case placed during the course of hearing. The Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a widow of an army officer and due to financial position she could not pay the installments of the price of plot. He further stated that she had deposited an amount of Rs. 80,000/ - on 13.12.96, in order to clear the outstanding amount together with interest/penalty etc. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the ground of cancellation no longer survives and cancellation order passed by the Estate Officer deserves to be revoked. On the other hand, Sh. Prithi Singh, SLO contended that in this case the petitioner had failed to deposit all the 6 installments which fell due between 1990 to 1993. When there was no response from the allottee, the Estate Officer cancelled the allotment. ACA has pointed in her order that the balance amount deposited by the appellant after cancellation of the plot, has been accepted conditionally. It is to be noted that the amount of Rs. 80,000/ - deposited in December, 1996 was paid by one Sawinder Singh. Later, the petitioner appointed Shri Rambir Kumar as G.P.A. on 11.03.1997, i.e., after more than three years when the said plot was cancelled by the Estate Officer. ACA had observed in her order that this appears to a case of underhand sale as pointed out by counsel of PUDA.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the revisional order clearly disclosed that after resumption of the appellant''s plot, the appellant''s case as General Power of Attornery(GPA) was firstly pursued by one Sawinder Singh and later on one Rambir Kumar became her GPA. Learned Single Judge has also upheld the findings of the revisional authority that the GPAs'' are not the appellant''s relatives but either are buyers or property dealers who have entered into some under hand sale.
The appellant vide order dated 2.02.2009, was asked to file an affidavit showing reasons why strangers have been chosen to be her power of attorney holders, but she failed to do so and accordingly, the learned Single Judge by agreeing with the decision of the revisional authority dismissed the writ petition.
In the present appeal, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, who appears for the appellant has submitted that the appellant being in the USA was not able to file the desired affidavit and no adverse inference ought to have been drawn against her. It has been submitted that she is staying with her daughter who is settled abroad, due to treatment which has led to the amputation but such averments did not find mention in the writ petition. Furthermore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that strangers who have chosen to be her attorney holders and approached the various authorities and thus, the finding is that they are buyers or property dealers, but this finding has not been controverted by filing an affidavit even today. Accordingly, we affirm that finding.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and do not find it a fit case to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and accordingly, dismissed the same.