JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) The petitioners in these seven cases are the allottees of different commercial sites. They allege that the Chandigarh Administration has failed to provide basic amenities/facilities for the use and occupation of the sites sold' to them. They complain that the Administration has failed to administer. It is guilty of mal-administration. Yet, it is arbitrarily charging ground rent and interest. It is even resorting to the resumption of sites. On these premises, the petitioners pray for the intervention of this Court so as to prevent the Administration from charging interest and ground rent. The factual position as relevant for the decision of these cases may be briefly noticed.CWP No.9481/99
(2.) On Feb. 12, 1989, the Chandigarh Administration auctioned Godown Site No.290, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The petitioner along with his two brothers gave a bid for a premium of Rs. 22,10,000/-. It was accepted. After deposit of 25% of the bid money viz. Rs. 5,52.500/- , the letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on March 16, 1989. The site was given to the petitioner for 99 years on lease-hold basis. Under the terms of allotment the petitioner had to pay the amount along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum in three equal yearly installments of Rs. 6,31,590/-. These payments had to commence at the expiry of one year from the date of auction. Besides that, the allottees had also to pay annual ground rent at the rate of Rs. 55,250/- for the first 33 years. A copy of the letter of allotment has been produced as Annexure-P1 with the writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner commenced construction. However, he found that there were high voltage electric wires passing over the site. The sewerage system had not been laid. There was no approach road to the site. There were a large number of jhuggis adjacent to the place. The dwelllers were using the site as an open lavatory. On Sept. 26, 1989, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Estate Officer with the request that the necessary facilities be provided and that the unauthorised jhuggis be got removed. The needful was not done despite various representations and personal requests. The petitioner alleges that "from the date of allotment till today, no amenities such as roads, water supply, sewerage, drainage, land-scaping and other public utility services have been provided." He has "paid the entire premium...." Since "the amenities prescribed under the Act and necessary for the proper use of the site have not been made available at the site from the date of auction till today, no interest or ground rent can be charged. ........ till the amenities are made available and the site is made use-able.... " It is his case that the Administration " is required to provide the amenities and to develop the site before auction which the respondents fail to do. Without developing the site and providing the amenities, the respondents started charging the ground rent from the date of auction. Since .........site is not fit for use, no ground rent and interest deserve to be charged till the amenities are provided and the site is made properly useable for running the business for which it has been purchased.;