Chandigarh Administrator vs Manjit Kumar Gulati

2024 INSC 959 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.14151-14152 OF 2024 (@ SLP (C) Nos.2283-2284 of 2016)

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Both the Appeals arise out of the common impugned Order dated

14.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.6866 of 1999 & C.W.P. No.8467 of 1999,

whereby the High Court has allowed both the writ petitions. The

operative part of the impugned order reads as under: -

“Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the order of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

resumption of the plot in question (Annexure P4) is quashed and RAVI ARORA Date: 2024.12.10 18:19:06 IST Reason:

the plot allotted to the allottee is ordered to be restored to him. Resultantly, order dated 6.10.1998 (Annexure P2) passed in

1 appeal, order dated 15.4.1999 (Annexure P3) passed in revision under the 1973 Rules as well as order dated 14.5.199 (Annexure P5) passed in appeal under the Public Premises Act are also quashed.

Further, we direct the respondents to calculate and communicate the outstanding amount, requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount in question. The respondents shall also communicate the formalities, if any, required to be completed by the petitioners within one month from today. On issuance of such letter, the petitioner shall deposit the amount claimed and shall complete the formalities, if any, within three months thereafter. In case the petitioner fails to make payment within the time granted, the order of resumption shall be revived.

It is further made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to get the amount deposited by him towards outstanding payments adjusted or he may recover the same by any other mode from the allottee/landlord.”

3. This Court vide the order dated 21.01.2016 while issuing notices in the

SLPs had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court.

4. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that: -

(i) The appellants sold the Booth site No. 14, Sector 46-C,

Chandigarh admeasuring 25.09 sq. yds. to the respondents –

Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “the

allottees”) in an open auction on 99 years leasehold basis on

12.02.1989. The allotment letter was issued to the allottees on

payment of 25% of the premium amount of the auctioned site on

31.05.1989. The balance 75% of the cost of the auctioned site was

2 to be paid by the allottees in three equal annual installments

alongwith the interest thereon. The first installment due was to be

paid by the allottees on 12.02.1990. However, they failed to do

so and, therefore, a show cause notice dated 14.09.1990 was

issued to them under Rule 12 (3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold

of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Rules of 1973”). Thereafter, number of times, opportunities were

granted to the said allottees for personal hearing, and make

payment however, they failed to appear before the concerned

authorities. As a result thereof, the Assistant Estate Office

cancelled the lease of the said respondents – allottees vide the

order dated 20.11.1991.

(ii) The allottees being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal

before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, who, vide order dated

12.10.1992 disposed of the said appeal by directing the

respondents – allottees to pay the entire amount of premium with

interest thereon, the amount of penalties etc. within 15 days. It

was further directed that if the respondents – allottees complied

with the said order, the site would stand restored to them,

otherwise, the order of Estate Officer shall stand operative and the

lease of the site shall stand cancelled.

3

(iii) The respondents – allottees, i.e., Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors.

challenged the order dated 12.10.1992 passed by the Chief

Administrator, Chandigarh before the Advisor, Chandigarh on

07.04.1999 by filing a petition being No.26 of 1999, which came

to be dismissed by the Advisor, Chandigarh vide the order dated

07.04.1999.

(iv) The alleged tenant – M/s. Mohit Medicos, also filed an appeal

before the Chief Administrator challenging the order dated

20.11.1991 passed by the Assistant Estate Office, which came to

be dismissed on 06.10.1998. The said tenant also filed a petition

being No.63 of 1998 before the Advisor, Chandigarh, which came

to be dismissed vide the order dated 15.04.1999.

(v) The allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. filed writ petition

being C.W.P. No.6866 of 1999 and the alleged tenant – M/s. Mohit

Medicos filed separate writ petition being C.W.P. No.8467 of

1999, challenging the orders passed by the Authorities of the

appellants, and seeking restoration of the site in question.

(vi) Both the writ petitions having been allowed by the High Court vide

the common impugned order as stated hereinabove, the

appellants have preferred the instant Appeals.

4

5. It may be noted that the respondents – allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati

and Ors. have chosen to remain absent before this Court, though duly

served with the notices, as per the Office Report dated 26.11.2024.

6. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Varun Chugh appearing for the

appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2283-2284 of

2016 and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondent(s) – alleged tenant – M/s. Mohit Medicos in Civil Appeal

arising out of SLP (C) No.2284 of 2016.

7. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants that since the allottees had failed to make payment of the

remaining 75% of the premium amount as per the terms and conditions

of the auction sale, the lease of the auction site was cancelled by the

Assistant Estate Office, after giving sufficient opportunities to the

allottees to clear the outstanding dues, and the said order was

confirmed by the Chief Administrator. The revision petition filed by the

allottees was also dismissed by the Advisor, Chandigarh on the ground

of gross delay. Hence, according to him, the High Court, in exercise of

its jurisdiction under Article 226, should not have interfered with the said

orders passed by the statutory authorities.

8. He further submitted that the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos

alleging to be the tenant is the proxy litigant and had no locus standi to

5 file the writ petition before the High Court, more particularly, when the

said respondents had failed to produce any document to show any lease

agreement between the original allottees and the said respondent(s) -

tenant.

9. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s) –

alleged tenant M/s. Mohit Medicos, placing reliance on the decision of

Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered by the Full Bench in Brij

Mohan Vs. Chief Administrator and others1, submitted that the

expression “transferee” contained in clause (k) of Section 2 of the

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 included the

“lessee”, and therefore the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos had the

locus standi to file the writ petition before the High Court challenging the

orders passed by the statutory authorities, as well as the order passed

in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as the “Public Premises Act”). He fairly

submitted that the said respondent(s) had not produced on record any

document to show that that M/s. Mohit Medicos was the tenant of the

allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors.

1 AIR 1980 P&H 236

6

10. At the outset, it may be noted that undisputedly the original allotment

made in favour of the allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. was

cancelled by the Assistant Estate Office vide the order dated 20.11.1991

after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the allottees by issuing

show cause notice dated 14.09.1990, however, the allottees had failed

to clear the outstanding dues. In the appeal preferred by the said

allottees, the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, considering the

submission made by the learned counsel for the allottees, had given the

allottees last opportunity to liquidate their liability and retain the lease of

the site in question by paying the entire amount of premium with interest

etc., within 15 days from the date of the passing of the order dated

12.10.1992. The respondents- allottees instead of complying with the

said order preferred a petition before the Advisor to the Administrator

U.T., Chandigarh after a delay of about 5 and half years, which also

came to dismissed by the Advisor, vide order 07.04.1999 on the ground

of being time barred.

11. Similar challenge made by the so-called tenant of the said allottees i.e.,

M/s. Mohit Medicos also came to be dismissed by the Advisor. Under

the circumstances, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to

the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, the respondents – allottees

had failed to clear the same. Hence, the High Court had committed

7 gross error in allowing the writ petitions by holding that the tenant, i.e.,

M/s. Mohit Medicos was not served with the notice of resumption with

regard to the plot in question. Admittedly, there was no document

whatsoever produced by the said alleged tenant to show that it was the

tenant of the original allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. When the

original allottees themselves had failed to comply with the conditions of

auction sale, and when the allotment itself made in favour of the said

allottees was cancelled by the Statutory Authority after following the due

process of law, i.e., by issuing show cause notice before cancellation of

allotment, and when number of opportunities of hearing were given to

the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, there was no question of

serving any notice to the so called tenant, M/s. Mohit Medicos,

especially when there was nothing on record to suggest that M/s. Mohit

Medicos was the tenant of the original allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati

and Ors. The High Court had completely lost sight of the said factual

aspects of the matter while allowing the writ petitions filed by the

respondents – allottees and the so called tenant – M/s. Mohit Medicos.

The decision of FULL Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court relied

upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) - tenant has

no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the

respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos, by no stretch of imagination could

be said to be a tenant of the original allottees, in absence of any material 8 placed on record, to substantiate the same. The litigation carried forward

by the said alleged tenant is nothing but a proxy litigation on behalf of

the original allottees, who were the defaulters and an abuse of process

of law.

12. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court

being erroneous is set aside. The Appeals are allowed accordingly.

………………………………….. J.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI)

………………………………….. J.

(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 10th, 2024.

9