- (1.) M/s. Braham Sarup and Sons through present petition filed by it under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders vide which site allotted to it on lease old basis bearing No. 61, Sector 26, Chandigarh was resumed on the ground that the instalments due from petitioner were not paid in time.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that site No. 61 in Sector 26, Chandigarh was allotted to petitioner on a premium of Rs. 1,70,000/- and inconsequence thereof, allotment letter was issued on April 8, 1976. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter aforesaid, 25% of the total price was to be paid initially whereas the remaining amount was to be paid in three equated annual instalments. It is not disputed that the first instalment was paid before the time any action was taken against petitioner under the provisions of Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1963. The second instalment, however could not be paid in time and, therefore, notice under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules aforesaid was issued to it asking to pay a penalty of Rs. 5283/- alongwith instalment that had come due by then. It is stated that order aforesaid was challenged but before final orders were to be passed in the matter, the Estate Officer did not pursue the matter. On June 14, 1978 once again notice was issued to it but this time, however, under Rule 20 of the Rules ibid and vide orders dated August 8, 1978 lease granted to petitioner vide allotment letter, reference of which has been made above was cancelled and an amount of Rs. 17000/- being l/10th of the premium was forfeited. Insofar as ground rent was concerned, the same was forfeited to the extent of Rs. 10,447. 90/ -. Petitioner, obviously, being aggrieved of the orders aforesaid, filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator which was accepted vide orders dated July 17, 1981. It was, however, ordered by the appellate authority that the third instalment which had become due by then, would also be paid alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as penalty. On deposit of the amount aforesaid, lease hold rights of petitioner were however, to be restored. This order was also challenged by the petitioner in a revision but the same was dismissed on June 13, 1982. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition.
(3.) AT the time of motion hearing, the Bench dealing with the matter noticed that petitioner had since made payment of premium as also penalty. The amount, so ordered to be paid by the Chief Commissioner has since already been paid and, therefore, the only surviving question is as to whether the delay in making payment which was a condition precedent for restoring lease hold rights, should come in the way of petitioner in getting the leasehold rights of the property restored. The amount, as per the orders referred to above, was to be deposited by September, 1981 whereas it was actually paid in January, 1982. There is thus, a delay of about three months. This short delay can not visit petitioner with such consequences that might result in forfeiture of lease hold rights for which it has paid the entire amount. After-all the respondent-Administration is interested in the amount that is due for the sale of lease of the property in question towards petitioner. In welfare state it is not expected that a citizen shall have to face such serious consequences on account of small lapse.;