- (1.) Where the allottee was a purchaser of a the rate of 7% in three equal annual installments apart from the fact that the allottee was to pay ground rent as well. The allottee failed to pay even the first installment for which a show cause notice dated 06.09.1990 (Annex-ure P-2) was issued. In pursuance of such notice, the allottee made a request on 19.10.1990 (Annexure P-3) that it is difficult for him to deposit such a huge amount and he be granted six months' time to deposit the same. Such request was allowed enabling him to deposit the amount by 31.03.1991. Since the allottee failed to make the deposit, another show cause notice dated
(2.) 09.04.1991 was served upon him to show cause as to why the lease of the site may not be cancelled. Reply to the said notice was submitted by Mr. S. K. Nanda, IAS, as General Power of Attorney of the allottee on 23.04.1991 requesting for extension of one year's time to make the payment. However, the Assistant Estate Officer exercising the powers of the Estate Officer passed an order on 11.07.1991 (Annexure P-7) for cancellation of lease and forfeiture of 10% of the premium amount. The appeal against the said order was accepted by the learned Chief Administrator on 04.05.1992 subject to the condition that the outstanding amount be paid within six months from the date of dispatch of the order. It was on 18.11.1992, the allottee made a request for re-scheduling of the payment of second and third installment for the reason that he has limited source of income from agriculture. The allottee also sought six months time to make payments of second and third installments. The said request was treated as a revision by the learned Adviser. The Adviser accepted the prayer for re-scheduling and permitted the allottee to deposit the entire outstanding amount in two monthly installments. The operative part of the order dated 25.11.1992 reads as under: ".. .Consequently, I set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire outstanding amount in two. monthly installments on or before 30.03.199 with a forfeiture of 5% already reduced by the Chief Administrator vide his order dated 14th May, 1992 failing which the impugned order of the Estate Officer shall come into operation. As the prayer is made for re-scheduling the installments in respect of SCO Nos.16 & 17, Sector 20, Chandigarh, but appeal in respect of SCO No. 16, Sector 20 is still pending before the Chief Administrator, accordingly, the present revision is decided only in respect of SCO No. 17, Sector 20 and no relief can be given in respect of SCO No. 16, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh."
(3.) An application was moved by the allottee on 26.03.1993 for revision/modification of the order dated 25.11.1992 that he be granted three months time to pay the outstanding dues. Another application was filed to bring additional facts on record on 04.06.1993. The said applications were declined by the then Adviser on 07.07.1993 with the following observation: "4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that although the outstanding payment of Rs.3,77,975/- was to be made on 24.11.1992 yet the petitioner received a notice for payment of Rs. 13,75,138/- which presumably includes the payment of 2nd and 3rd installment along with interest etc. This Hon'ble Court on 25.11.1992 was pleased to order for depositing the entire outstanding amount in two monthly installments on or before 30.03.1993. The petitioner could not arrange and manage to pay the entire outstanding amount before 30.03.1993 due to his old age, serious illness and other reasons and as such could not pay the outstanding amount. 5. The representation of the present petitioner is a review petition which is not maintainable before this Court and be dismissed as such. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the record of the Estate Officer, I do find that ample opportunity has already been given by the Chief Administrator as well as by this Court to pay the outstanding amount, but the petitioner has failed to deposit the same. Besides this, the present petition is a review petition which is not maintainable before the undersigned especially when power to review is a creature of statute and it cannot be exercises unless statute so provides. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed as such being not maintainable.";