ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS versus RAJAN SOI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 02-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 160 
A 
ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
v. 
RAJAN SOI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 423 of2008) 
MARC!-! 02, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 197 3: r. 
21-A - Cancellation of plot allotted to one M - Various orders 
passed with regard to cancellation - Writ petition against - High 
Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellant 
to re-consider the case of the writ petitioners in light of *Jasbir 
Singh Bakshi 's case - In appeal to this court, appellant co/1/ended 
that *Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case does not apply in the case of writ 
petitioners - Held: In view of the background of the litigation 
wherein the writ petitioners had challenged the successive orders 
with regard to cancellation and rejection of request made by them 
for time for re-payment, without considering the merits of the ma/fer, 
a direction could not have been issued to consider the case of the 
writ petitioners in light of *Jasbir Singh Bakshi 's case, which 
does not apply to the case of the writ petitioners - The impugned 
;udgment is set aside and writ petition is remilled to the High 
Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 
*Jasbir Singh Bakshi v. Union Territory, Chandigarh 
and others (2004) I 0 SCC 440 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2004) 10 sec 440 
referred to. 
Paras 4, 6, 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 423 
of 2008 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2006 of the High Court 
G of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 20326 of2004. 
H 
San gram S. Saron, Shree Pal Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. 
M. C. Dhingra, Adv .. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
160 
ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH v. RAJAN SOI 
161 
[KURIAN, J.) 
2. Respondent Nos. I to 3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 20326 of A 
2004 are before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.4.2006. 
The writ petitioners had approached the High Court, aggrieved by the 
various orders passed with regard to cancellation of a plot allotted to one 
Milkhi Ram, S/o Madho Ram. 
3. The first prayer made by the writ petitioners before the High 
Court was to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned 
orders Annexures P/2, P/3, P/5, P/6, P/8, P/8A, P/9, P/11 and P/13 as 
well as quashing the entire proceedings initiated and undertaken by the 
respondents for cancellation of the premises i.e. plot bearing No.192, 
Sector40, Chandigarh especially in view of the fact that petitioners were 
ready to make the entire payment due till date. 
B 
c 
4. It appears that when the writ petition came for hearing before 
the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners made 
a submission foran offer that it was not necessary for the High Court to 
go into the merits of the case, since the writ petitioners proposed to file 
an application under Rule 21-A of the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites 
D 
and Buildings Rules, 1973 (in short, 'the Rules'). It was also submitted 
that in case such an application is filed, the same could be directed to be 
considered in the light of judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh Bakshi 
versus Union Territory. Chandigarh and others, reported in (2004) 
I 0 SCC 440. In terms of the request thus made, the writ petition was 
E 
disposed of by the impugned order. 
5. Thus aggrieved, the Union Territory, Chandigarh is before this 
Court in civil appeal. 
6. The main contention of the appellant is thatJasbir Singh Bakshi 
(supra) does not apply in the case <?fthe writ petitioners. That was a 
F 
case where this Court considered the deposit made by the defaulter and 
virtually gave some more time to pay the balance. Additionally, it is 
pointed out that it was a case of resumption and not a case for re-
transfer under Rule 21-A of the Rules. As far as the writ petitioners are 
concerned, it is pointed out that the stage where the writ petitioners 
G 
could seek for some more time to make the defaulted instalments had 
already been over before this Court by virtue of order dated 12.12.1991 
in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 75920 of 1991. Therefore, the High 
Court went wrong in disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the 
appellant to re-consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of 
Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case, it is submitted. 
H 
162 
A 
B 
S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.