SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, HARPREET SINGH BRAR, JJ.
Ashutosh Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.11029 of 2023
Decided On : 24-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Money Goel, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents-UT, Chandigarh.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of certiorari - Challenge against cancellation of allotment of residential house after 42 years - Delay and laches considered in deciding writ petitions - Petitioner failed to explain inordinate delay of 42 years in invoking writ jurisdiction - Court ruled that negligence in pursuing remedies leads to denial of discretionary relief. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Laches - Delay defeats equity - Writ jurisdiction not to be exercised in favor of parties who sleep over their rights for an extensive period without sufficient explanation. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of House No. 3307, Chandigarh, which was allotted in 1974, due to payment non-compliance, later leading to eviction proceedings initiated after the original allottee's death in 1994. The petitioner argued ignorance of the debt owed on the property and sought relief despite the significant delay.

Findings of Court:
The writ petition suffers from laches and undue delay, lacking compelling reasons for not filing earlier, and hence was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner can challenge the cancellation of an allotment after such prolonged delay and whether laches bar the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that failure to act on legal rights in a timely manner undermines claims to equity, emphasizing that unexplained delays can result in denial of judicial relief.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background details of property lease. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding delay and compliance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. analysis of delay and laches principles. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. judicial reasoning on denial of relief. (Para 13)
5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 09.06.1978 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1, ordering cancellation of the allotment of House No. 3307, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh along with order dated 05.01.1980 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 14.12.1994 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed on the ground of delay and review being not maintainable.

Factual Background

2. The facts of the case as emanating from the record as well as from the arguments of both the parties, en seriatim, are as under:-

3. On 28.10.1974, Mohan Lal Jain was allotted the site of House No. 3307, Sector 15-D, Chandgiarh on lease hold basis for a period of 99 years. A show cause notice was issued to him on 26.12.1977 under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease-Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 Rules for non-payment of 2nd and 3rd instalment. The site was ordered to be cancelled by the Estate Officer on 09.06.1978. Vide order dated 24.05.1979, the appeal filed by the allottee against the said cancellation was decided by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and the site was restored subject to conditions of payment up to 31.07.1979, failing which order of Estate Officer was to become operative. A revision petition filed against the order of Chief Administrator dated 24.05.1979 was allowed and the site was restored subject to conditions of payment by 06.02.1980, failing which the site was ordered to be resumed. Considering the amount in default, the forfeiture amount was reduced to Rs. 2250/- and the outstanding dues amounted to Rs. 4500/-. On 24.06.1981 the Estate Officer communicated that the orders of the Chief Administrator have not been complied with. On 17.11.1993 eviction proceedings were launched under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act' for short). On 03.01.1994, original allottee Mohan Lal Jain died. Thereafter, on 09.05.1994 an eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 (i) of the Act. A review petition was filed on 14.12.1994 by son of the original allottee namely Udey Jain for review of order dated 05.01.1980 passed by the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh which was dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh.

4. On 20.02.1995, learned District Judge issued a direction to conduct fresh proceedings for eviction of the occupants including Udey Jain. Thereafter on 07.09.1997 an application was moved for transfer of site in question by the present petitioner Ashutosh Jain and Maya Devi, son and widow of deceased original allottee Mohan Lal Jain respectively, on the basis of Will dated 23.04.1993. On 09.05.2023 a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the concerned SDM for 17.05.2023 to the legal heirs of deceased Mohan Lal Jain, on which date the SDM (Central)-cum-Estate Officer under the Act passed a detailed order of eviction under Section 5 (i) of the Act.

Contentions

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that on an appeal filed by the father of the petitioner, the site was restored subject to the condition of payment up to 31.07.1979. The father of the petitioner developed multiple complications and was also operated upon for cardiac problems and his treatment continued from 1979 till his death in the year 1994 as is discernible from his medical record (Annexure P-6).

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further argued t

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top