ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. Vs. RAJAN SOI & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 423 of 2008, Judgment Date: Mar 02, 2016

                                                         REPORTABLE


                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CIVIL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2008



ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS                      Appellant(s)         


                                  Versus


RAJAN SOI AND OTHERS                                           Respondent(s)        



                            J U D G M E N T


KURIAN, J.

1.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.    Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 20326  of  2004  are
before this Court, aggrieved by the  judgment  dated  21.4.2006.   The  writ
petitioners had approached the High Court, aggrieved by the  various  orders
passed with regard to cancellation of a plot allotted  to  one  Milkhi  Ram,
S/o Madho Ram.

3.    The first prayer made by the writ petitioners before  the  High  Court
was to issue a writ in  the  nature  of  Certiorari  quashing  the  impugned
orders Annexures P/2, P/3, P/5, P/6, P/8, P/8A, P/9, P/11 and P/13  as  well
as  quashing  the  entire  proceedings  initiated  and  undertaken  by   the
respondents for cancellation of  the  premises  i.e.  plot  bearing  No.192,
Sector 40, Chandigarh especially in view of the fact that  petitioners  were
ready to make the entire payment due till date.

4.    It appears that when the writ petition came for   hearing  before  the
High Court, learned counsel  appearing  for  the  writ  petitioners  made  a
submission for an offer that it was not necessary for the High Court  to  go
into the merits of the case, since the writ petitioners proposed to file  an
application under Rule 21-A  of  the  Chandigarh  Lease-hold  of  Sites  and
Buildings Rules, 1973 (in short, 'the Rules').  It was also  submitted  that
in case such an application is filed, the  same  could  be  directed  to  be
considered in the light of judgment of this Court  in  Jasbir  Singh  Bakshi
versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, reported  in  (2004)  10  SCC
440.  In terms of the request thus made, the writ petition was  disposed  of
by the impugned order.

5.    Thus aggrieved, the Union Territory, Chandigarh is before  this  Court
in civil appeal.

6.    The main contention of the  appellant  is  that  Jasbir  Singh  Bakshi
(supra) does not apply in the case of the  writ  petitioners.   That  was  a
case where this Court considered the  deposit  made  by  the  defaulter  and
virtually gave some more time to  pay  the  balance.   Additionally,  it  is
pointed out that it was a case of resumption and not a case for  re-transfer
under Rule 21-A of the Rules. As far as the writ petitioners are  concerned,
it is pointed out that the stage where the writ petitioners could  seek  for
some more time to make the  defaulted  instalments  had  already  been  over
before this Court by virtue of  order  dated  12.12.1991  in  Special  Leave
Petition(C) No. 75920 of 1991. Therefore,  the  High  Court  went  wrong  in
disposing of the writ petition with a direction  to  the  appellant  to  re-
consider the case of the writ petitioners  in  the  light  of  Jasbir  Singh
Bakshi's case, it is submitted.

7.    Be that as it may,  in  view  of  the  background  of  the  litigation
wherein the writ petitioners  had  challenged  the  successive  orders  with
regard to cancellation and rejection of request made by them  for  time  for
re-payment, without considering the merits of the matter, a direction  could
not have been issued to consider the case of the  writ  petitioners  in  the
light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case, which we have already noted  above,  in
our view, does not apply to the case of the writ petitioners.

8.    We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment  and
remit the writ petition  to  the  High  Court  for  fresh  consideration  in
accordance with law.

9.    No order as to costs.




                                                  ........................J.
                                                             (KURIAN JOSEPH)



                                                  ........................J.
                                                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi,
March 02, 2016