CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC. versus MANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 10-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 947 : 2024 INSC 959
Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc. 
v.
Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. & Etc. Etc.  
(Civil Appeal No(s). 14151-14152 of 2024)
10 December 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The respondents-allottees had failed to clear the outstanding 
dues of the allotted booth site, despite sufficient opportunities of 
hearing given to the allottees to clear the said outstanding dues. 
Whether the High Court committed error in restoring the allotment 
and directing them to pay the outstanding amount.
Headnotes†
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 
1971 – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 
1973 – Appellants sold the Booth site to the respondents – 
The allotment letter was issued to the respondents-allottees 
on payment of 25% of the premium amount of the auctioned 
site – The balance 75% of the cost of the auctioned 
site was to be paid by the respondents – Respondents 
defaulted – As a result thereof, lease of the respondents was 
cancelled by the concerned statutory authorities – However, 
the High Court restored the plot allotted to the allottee and 
respondents herein were directed to pay the outstanding 
amount – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, despite sufficient opportunities of 
hearing given to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, the 
respondents-allottees had failed to clear the same – The High 
Court had committed gross error in allowing the writ petitions by 
holding that the tenant-MM, 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 – When 
the original allottees themselves had failed to comply with the 
conditions of auction sale, and when the allotment itself made in 
* Author
948
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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, especially, when there was nothing on 
record to suggest that MM was the tenant of the original allottees – 
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 – In that view of 
the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court being 
erroneous is set aside. [Paras 11, 12]
Case Law Cited
Brij Mohan v. Chief Administrator and Others, AIR 1980 P&H 
236 – referred to.
List of Acts
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; 
Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973.
List of Keywords
Allotment of booth site; Sufficient opportunity of hearing; 
Outstanding amount; Tenant; Conditions of auction; Due process 
of law; Proxy litigation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 14151-
14152 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2015 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos .6866 and 8467 
of 1999
Appearances for Parties
Varun Chugh, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Umang Shankar, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
949
Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc. v. 
Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. & Etc. Etc.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 resumption of the plot in question (Annexure 
P4) is quashed and the plot allotted to the allottee is 
ordered to be restored to him. Resultantly, order dated 
6.10.1998 (Annexure P2) passed in 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.