Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2008
ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJAN SOI AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Writ Petition No.
JUDGMENT
20326 of 2004 are before this Court, aggrieved by the
judgment dated 21.4.2006. The writ petitioners had
approached the High Court, aggrieved by the various
orders passed with regard to cancellation of a plot
allotted to one Milkhi Ram, S/o Madho Ram.
3. The first prayer made by the writ petitioners
before the High Court was to issue a writ in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders
Annexures P/2, P/3, P/5, P/6, P/8, P/8A, P/9, P/11
Page 1
2
and P/13 as well as quashing the entire proceedings
initiated and undertaken by the respondents for
cancellation of the premises i.e. plot bearing
No.192, Sector 40, Chandigarh especially in view of
the fact that petitioners were ready to make the
entire payment due till date.
4. It appears that when the writ petition came for
hearing before the High Court, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners made a submission
for an offer that it was not necessary for the High
Court to go into the merits of the case, since the
writ petitioners proposed to file an application
under Rule 21-A of the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites
and Buildings Rules, 1973 (in short, 'the Rules').
It was also submitted that in case such an
application is filed, the same could be directed to
JUDGMENT
be considered in the light of judgment of this Court
in Jasbir Singh Bakshi versus Union Territory,
Chandigarh and others , reported in (2004) 10 SCC 440.
In terms of the request thus made, the writ petition
was disposed of by the impugned order.
5. Thus aggrieved, the Union Territory, Chandigarh
is before this Court in civil appeal.
6. The main contention of the appellant is that
Page 2
3
Jasbir Singh Bakshi (supra) does not apply in the
case of the writ petitioners. That was a case where
this Court considered the deposit made by the
defaulter and virtually gave some more time to pay
the balance. Additionally, it is pointed out that it
was a case of resumption and not a case for re-
transfer under Rule 21-A of the Rules. As far as the
writ petitioners are concerned, it is pointed out
that the stage where the writ petitioners could seek
for some more time to make the defaulted instalments
had already been over before this Court by virtue of
order dated 12.12.1991 in Special Leave Petition(C)
No. 75920 of 1991. Therefore, the High Court went
wrong in disposing of the writ petition with a
direction to the appellant to re-consider the case of
the writ petitioners in the light of Jasbir Singh
Bakshi's case, it is submitted.
JUDGMENT
7. Be that as it may, in view of the background of
the litigation wherein the writ petitioners had
challenged the successive orders with regard to
cancellation and rejection of request made by them
for time for re-payment, without considering the
merits of the matter, a direction could not have been
issued to consider the case of the writ petitioners
in the light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case, which we
have already noted above, in our view, does not apply
Page 3
4
to the case of the writ petitioners.
8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment and remit the writ petition to the
High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with
law.
9. No order as to costs.
........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
........................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi,
March 02, 2016
JUDGMENT
Page 4