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
| 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
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service
Delay in asserting rights can extinguish enforceable claims, especially when cancellation was not contested in a timely manner.
The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Inordinate delay in seeking relief can bar a petition under Article 226, emphasizing the principle of laches and the need for timely action by litigants.
The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.