Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARHADMN. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MANAGING SOCIETY, GOSWAMI, GDSDC
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/1996
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1759 1996 SCC (7) 665
1996 SCALE (2)126
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The Chandigarh Administration allotted 10.5 acres
of land to the Managing Society, Goswami Ganesh Dutt
Sanatan Dharam College, Chandigarh (The Society),
respondent in the appeal herein, by the letter dated
June 21, 1975. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh
Administration, on March 15, 1991, directed the Society
to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,690/-, the difference between
the ground rent already paid by the Society and the one
which was payable under the statutory rules. The
Society challenged the notice by way of a writ petition
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Writ Petition
was allowed by the High Court and the demand notice was
quashed. This appeal by the Chandigarh Administration
is against the judgment of the High Court dated
October 22, 1991.
The land was alloted to the society for a period
of 99 years at the rate of Rs.10/- per square yard with
ground rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per acre per annum.
The allotment to the Society was subject to the
provisions of the capital of Punjab (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1952 (the Act) and the rules framed
thereunder. The Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and
Buildings Rules, 1973 (the rules), framed under the Act
were enforced with effect from August 20, 1973. Rule 13
of the rules is as under :
"13. Rent and Consequences of non-
payment. In addition to the
premium, whether in respect of site
or building, the lessee shall pay
rent as under :
i) Annual rent shall be 2-1/2% of
the premium for the first 33 years
which may be enhanced by the
Chandigarh Administration to 3-3/4%
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
of the premium for the next 33
years and to 5% of the premium for
the remaining period of the lease.
ii) Rent shall be payable annually
on the due date without any demand
from the Estate Officer.
Provided that the Estate Officer
may for good and sufficient reasons
extend the time for payment of rent
upto six months on the whole on
further payment of 6% per annum
interest from the due date upto the
date of actual payment.
iii) If rent is not paid by the due
date, the lessee shall be liable to
pay a penalty not exceeding 100% of
the amount due which may be imposed
and recovered in the manner laid
down in section 8 of the capital of
Punjab (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1952, as amended by Act No.11
of 1973".
It is obvious from Rule 13 reproduced above that in
addition to the premium the lessee under the Act and the
rules has to pay annual rent at the rate of 2-1/2% of the
premium for the first 33 years. The fixation of the premium
at the rate of Rs.100/- per acres in the case of the Society
was in patent violation of the rules. There is no discretion
under the rules with the Chandigarh Administration to fix
annual rent at a rate lower than the one provided under the
rules. It is stated by the Chandigarh Administration that
while preparing comments to the complaint filed by one Dr.
M.L. Saini, Chairman of the Chandigarh Recognised Schools
Management Association before the Rajya Sabha Committee, it
came to the notice of the administration that the fixation
of annual rent, in respect of the land allotted to the
Society and some other educational institution, was in
violation of Rule 13 of the rules. It was under these
circumstances that the mistake which was made in the year
1975 was sought to be corrected in the year 1991. The
Society challenged the action before the High Court on the
ground that there was no power of review under the Act and
the rules and as such the Chandigarh Administration could
not review its order after a period of 16 years. It was also
contended that the Chandigarh Administration was estopped
from passing an order prejudicial to the Society specially
when the Society has constructed buildings etc. on the
allotted land by incurring huge expenditure. The High Court
did not go into the question of equitable estopple and
allowed the writ petition on the short ground that in the
absence of any power of review under the Act and the rules
the Chandigarh Administration could not have revised the
annual rent fixed in the allotment letter dated June 21,
1975.
We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent
error in quashing the demand and the notice based on the
mandatory provisions of the rules. There is no question of
review in the facts and the circumstances of this case. The
Chandigarh Administration did not cancel the allotment. It
only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted
to subsist. There is nothing on the record to show that the
Estate Officer or any other authority applied its mind and
passed a conscious order fixing the annual rent at a rate
lower than the one provided under Rule 13 of the rules. We
have not been shown any power under the Act or the rules
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
permitting relaxation of the mandatory provisions of the
rules. A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions
of law can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and
in no other way. The question of equitable estopple does not
arise in this case because there can be no estopple against
statute.
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the
Society before the High Court shall stand dismissed. No
costs.