CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE ESTATE OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH versus M/S JOHNSON PAINTS AND VARNISH CO.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 22-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

> 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE ESTATE 
A 
OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH · 
v; 
·MIS. JOHNSON PAINTS AND VARNISH CO. 
MARCH 22, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK; JJ.] 
Capital ofl'unjab (Development and.Regulation) Act, 
digarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960 : 
• 
1952/Chan-
S.8-A/Rule 11-I>-!ndustrial site-Allotment of-Resumed for default 
of allottee-Application for retransfer of site to outgoing transferee-T71ird 
pany right effected by transferee by way of will and power of attorney-Held, 
once the orig0al allotment stands cancelled and the resumption became final, 
B 
c 
the allottee has no right in the allotted site-Rule 11-D does not clothe such 
person with any right to allotment-It being a discretionary benefit to be given D 
to the outgoing transferee· in the language of the rule, the outgoing tranferee 
mus4 in fact and in reality, be the real, genuine and bona fid~ transferee--Out-
going transferee acting for and on behalf of third party not entitled to the 
benefil 
· 
. 
. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURIS.DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.11.93 ·of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2677 of 1993. 
Aron Jaitley and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellant. 
M.L. Verma, L.K.. Pandey and Mahabir Singh for the Respondent. 
,, 
The following Order, of the Court was deHvered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave anses from the order of the High Court 
F 
G 
of Punjab and Haryana. in Writ Petition No. 2677/93, dated November 4, 
1993. The ·admitted facts are that the site bearing No. 187-B, Industrial 
area, Chandigarh was alloted to M/s. Johnson Paints & Varnish Co. for H 
819 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A industrial use. The allottee was Kulraj Singh Paul, S/o Sardar Gurbax 
Singh. The allotment came to be made in the year. 1965 at a concessional 
rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yd. Default was committed in payment of the 
instalments. Consequently, the site was resumed on April 26, 1967. On 
payment with penal amounts prescribed under the Rules the property was 
B 
c 
handed over again to the respondent. Thereafter, since it was not con-
structed, the property was again resumed in the year 1981. The respondent 
filed the writ petition, which was dismissed. LP A was also dismissed and 
when the SLP was filed, this Court confirmed the order of dismissal. Thus 
. entitlement to the allotment became final and the controversy became 
quiteous. 
Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Rule 11-D 
of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules 1960 (For short, the 
'Rule'), Rule 11-D (i) envisages that where a site has been resumed under 
. Section 8-A of Act 27 of 1952 for any.reason, the Estate Officer may, on 
D an application, retransfer the site to the out-going transferee on payment 
. of an amount equal to 10 per cent of the premium originally payable for 
such property or l/3rd of the difference between the price originally paid 
and its value at the time when the application for retransfer is made, 
whichever is more. The other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of 
this case including the proviso which bears relevance provided sub-clause 
E (1) of Rule 11-D is satisfied. Hence they are omitted. The Estate Officer 
had refused to make retransfer of allotment and the petition was rejected. 
Consequently, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which 
w•s allowed directing the appellant to allot the site to the respondent. Thus 
'this appeal by special leave. 
F 
Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
contended that it would appear from the circumstances in this case that 
the respondent Kulraj Singh Paul is only acting for the benefit of Tejpal 
Singh Brar, Narindra Brar and Gurinder Brar, s/o Sardar Gursewak Singh 
Brar r/o 5997, Sector 18, Chandigarh. Therefore, the respondent is not a 
G transferee. The Estate Officer is not obliged to order retransfer to the 
allottee Kulraj Singh Paul. In support thereof, he read out the recitals in 
the general power of attorney, the conditions of allotment and also the 
recitals in the Will purported to have been executed by Kulraj Singh Paul 
in favour of the aforesaid three individuals. Shri M.L. Verma, learned 
H senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the condition 
CHANDIGARHADMN.v. M/S.JOHNSONPAINTS 
821 
precedent for rejection of the claim is .that the third party right is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.