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