The High Court erred in allowing writ petitions challenging lease cancellation despite the allottees' failure to pay outstanding dues, as statutory authorities acted within their jurisdiction.

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 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 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.

(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 Off