JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) ON December 18, 1996, the petitioners purchased a Shop-cum-Office Site No. 64, Sector 46, Chandigarh for a total premium of Rs. 63 lacs. They deposited 25% of the amount viz. Rs. 15.75 lacs within the stipulated period of 30 days. Thereafter, on February 13, 1997, the letter of allotment was issued. Despite various requests, the possession of the site was not delivered. Ultimately, in October, 1997, the petitioners surrendered the site and asked for the refund. Nobody paid any heed. The petitioners sent a legal notice on March 4, 1998 claiming refund of the amount along with interest and damages. Instead of responding to the notice, the Estate Officer slapped a show cause notice dated April 30, 1998. A copy of this notice has been produced as Annexure P.6. The petitioners were called upon to "show cause by 2.6.1998 as to why the lease of the said site may not be cancelled and whole/part of the premium ground rent paid....... forfeited under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973......". The petitioners submitted a reply. Regardless, the third respondent passed an order dated June 3, 1998. The lease was cancelled and order for forfeiture of an amount of Rs. 6.30 lacs was passed. The petitioners field an appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator vide order dated December 22, 1998. The petitioners filed a revision petition. On November 10, 1999, the Adviser to the Administrator decided this revision petition. She inter alia found as under : "After hearing the parties and going through the submissions made, I find that the allotment letter was issued on 13.2.1997 by the Estate Officer but the possession of the plot was not handed over to the petitioners thereafter. The Estate Officer also did not act promptly in having the tree as well as electricity pole removed from the allotted site despite repeated requests from the petitioners. Non-removal of the tree as also the electricity pole has compelled the petitioners to surrender the allotment of the site. The Estate Officer should have taken prompt action on the request of the petitioners once it came to his notice that the site was not free from encumbrances. This inaction on the part of the Estate Officer has resulted in avoidable inconvenience to the petitioners. In view of the circumstances of the case, I reduce the forfeiture from 10% to 1/2%. Announced. Parties be communicated."
(2.) IN view of the above order, the respondents were entitled to forfeit an amount of Rs. 31,500/-. When the petitioners approached the Estate Office for the refund, they were informed that only an amount of Rs. 2 lacs was payable. The petitioners filed an application before the Adviser seeking clarification of her order. This request was declined on February 23, 2000 with the observation that the statute does not provide for any review. Consequently, the petitioners have approached this court through the present writ petition. They pray that the orders passed by the three respondents, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.8, P.9 and P.10 be quashed. They further pray for the issue of a writ directing the respondents to refund the total amount of Rs. 15.75 lacs alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred that "before auction, the respondents gave public notice regarding the location and the lay-out plan of the sites and it was for the petitioners to satisfy themselves about the actual position at the site before bidding therefor". As soon as the "respondents were made aware of the encumbrances at the site, they took steps to remove the same, by writing letters dated 27.2.1997, 30.4.1997 and 27.5.1997 to the Executive Engineer Horticulture Division-II, Chandigarh....". It has been further averred that respondent No. 1 had "substantially reduced the forfeiture from Rs. 6,30,000/- to Rs. 31,500/- and had thereby given the benefit of Rs. 5,95,000/- to the petitioners. However, no order had been passed regarding the ground rent and interest. As per the said order, a sum of Rs. 3,96,248/- is refundable to the petitioners...".
(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.;