- (1.) The Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Sector 62, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as "the GMADA") has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, who is the revisional authority under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Vide the said order, the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the orders dated 24.4.2009 and 12.8.2009 (Annexures P-3 and P4), passed by the Estate Officer; and the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, respectively, was partly accepted and the order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by of the Estate Officer, GMADA was modified to the extent that the amount of forfeiture was reduced from 10% to 4% of the total sale consideration. In this case, respondent No. 1 had purchased SCF No. 18, Phase 9, Mohali, in an open auction held by the GMADA on 2.9.2008, by giving the highest bid of Rs. 3,92,00,000/-. On the fall of the hammer, respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 39,20,000/- being 10% of the auction price. As per the terms of the auction, he was required to pay another 15% of the sale price within thirty days from the day of auction. Respondent No. 1 paid the said amount within time. Thus, on payment of 25% of the sale price, i.e. Rs. 98,00,000/-, the allotment letter (Annexure P-1) was issued to respondent No. 1 vide memo dated 4.11.2008. As per the allotment letter, 75% balance amount was to be paid in four yearly equal installments, as per the schedule annexed with the allotment letter. Respondent No. 1 was supposed to make payment of the first installment on or before 2.9.2009. However, due to economic crunch and suffering of heavy loss in the business, and finding himself to be incapable to pay the first installment, respondent No. 1 moved an application (Annexure P-2) to the Estate Officer, GMADA, on 16.4.2009 (well before the due date of payment of first installment), for surrender of the site and refund of the 25% amount, paid by him.
(2.) Vide order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), the Estate Officer, GMADA, while considering the request of respondent No. 1, ordered the resumption of the site along with forfeiture of 10% of the total sate consideration, including interest and penalty in favour of the GMADA under Section 45 (3) of the Act.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 24.4.2009, respondent No. 1 filed appeal under Section 45(5) of the Act. The Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, vide his order dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the appeal, while observing as under:- Both the parties were heard and their contentions were considered and record perused. The contention of the appellant of being in financial crisis in order to avoid the payment of installment is not sustainable. The appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions of the allotment letter. Accordingly the Estate Officer, GMADA, has passed the order dated 24.4.2009 keeping in view the conditions of the allotment letter. There is no merit in the case which warrants interference. As such the present appeal is dismissed. Against the aforesaid orders, respondent No. 1 filed revision petition under Section 45(8) of the Act before the State Government, which has been partly accepted by the revisional authority-,"while observing as under: I have heard both the parties in length and perused the record of the case placed before me during the course of hearing and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also gone through the list of cases submitted by the petitioner where the Revisional Authority has reduced the forfeited amount of commercial sites sold through auction. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force that the auction property is with the GMADA and moreover the GMADA has also utilised 10% of the forfeited amount for more than one and half year, the petitioner under the compelled circumstances surrendered the site because of losses suffered due to global recession. I have no doubt in accepting that the petitioner surrendered the site sincerely and honestly and there is no default on the part of the petitioner and no installment was due when the site was surrendered. No prejudice has been caused to the GMADA in accepting surrender of the present site. The Estate Officer in his order has no where justified the imposition of maximum forfeiture of 10% while accepting surrender. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I partially accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the authorities below. Keeping in view the heavy involvement of amount, the end of justice would meet by forfeiting 4% amount instead of total of 10% amount as forfeited by the Estate Officer while accepting the surrender. The Estate Officer, GMADA is thus directed to refund 6% and forfeit 4% amount deposited by the petitioner against SCF No. 18, Phase 9, Mohali. The said order of the revisional authority has been challenged by the Estate Officer, GMADA, in this writ petition.;