Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE petitioners purchased plot No. 410 measuring 259.405 yards. Sector 38 -A, Chandigarh, in an open auction, held on 19.11.1997 by the Chandigarh Administration, for a premium of Rs. 31,25,000/ -. In the same auction, the adjoining plot No. 411, Sector 38 -A, Chandigarh, was also auctioned, which was purchased by one Bhupinder Singh for a premium of Rs. 27,50,000/ -. Subsequently, the petitioners deposited. 15% of the amount on 23.12.1997, to complete 25% of the premium amount. Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 6.2.1998 (Annexure P -3) was issued in favour of the petitioners. According to this letter, the remaining amount was to be paid in three equal annual instalments. Thereafter, when the petitioners went at the spot to take possession of the plot, the possession was not delivered because a peepal tree was standing on the plot. For that reason, the petitioners did not deposit the, instalments. When the second instalment was not deposited, a show cause notice dated 18.1.2000 (Annexure P -12), which has been impugned in the instant petition, was issued to the petitioners to pay the second instalment. It has not been disputed that the said peepal tree was standing on the boundary of two plots, i.e. plot of the petitioners and plot No. 411, which was allotted to Bhupinder Singh. The high tension wires were also going over the plot of Bhupinder Singh, due to which possession of plot No. 411 was not delivered to him. So far as the plot of the petitioners is concerned, only peeple tree was standing there, due to which possession of the plot could not be delivered to them. The said Bhupinder Singh filed CWP No. 1365 of 2000, which was decided vide order dated 4.1.2001 (reported as Bhupinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, : (2001 -1) 127 PLR 778 and copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioners vide an application bearing CM No. 1544 -CWP of 2007.
(2.) WHEN this case was taken up for -hearing on 20.2.2001, counsel for the respondents made a statement that this petition can also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decision in the case of Bhupinder Singh, but learned counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment to enable him to obtain instructions and to file replication. Thereafter, replication was filed by the petitioners, in which a stand was taken that they were not in a position to pay the balance instalments and prayed that the respondents be directed to refund them the deposited amount along with interest. Now, when this matter has been taken up today for regular hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the said peepal tree was removed on 25.4.2000 and keeping the said fact into consideration, the writ petition filed by Bhupinder Singh was allowed on 4.1.2001 with a direction to the respondents to charge the instalments and ground rent etc. after the expiry of one year from the said date of removal of the tree. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed that let this petition be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decision in the case of Bhupinder Singh, and the petitioners undertake to pay the balance amount and interest, as per law, with effect from 25.4.2001, i.e. one year after the removal of the peepal tree. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to it, as this case is squarely covered by the decision in Bhupinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (supra). Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to hand over possession of the plot in question to the petitioners on their depositing entire balance dues with interest, as per law, with effect from 25.4.2001, without any further delay.;