Supreme Court of India
Chandigarh Administrator vs Manjit Kumar Gulati on 10 December, 2024
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
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 VerifiedDigitally 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 in1
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 installmentsalongwith 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