Punjab-Haryana High Court
Greater Mohali Area Development ... vs Parshotam Lal And Others on 5 August, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013 and other connected case -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
DATE OF DECISION : 05.08.2013
1. C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority .....Petitioner
Versus
Parshotam Lal and others .....Respondents
2. C.W.P. No.9200 of 2013
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority .....Petitioner
Versus
Parshotam Lal and others .....Respondents
3. C.W.P. No.16314 of 2013
Parshotam Lal and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
4. C.W.P. No.16226 of 2013
Parshotam Lal and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. B.S.Mangat, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, (In CWP Nos.8825 and
for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9200 of 2013)
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S.Mangat, Advocate, (In CWP Nos.16226 and
for respondent No.2-GMADA. 16314of 2013)
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013 and other connected case -2-
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.
By way of this order it is proposed to dispose of C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013, C.W.P. No.9200 of 2013, C.W.P. No.16226 of 2013 and C.W.P. No.16314 of 2013, as all the four petitions involve common questions of fact and law and are directed against the common order dated 23.11.2012 passed by respondent No.3. Facts are being culled out from C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013.
On 28.05.2008, an open auction of various commercial sites was held by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the GMADA'). Parshotam Lal and Abhishek Garg, father and son, duo, petitioners in CWP Nos.16226 and 16313 of 2013 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in CWP Nos.8825 and 9200 of 2013, also participated in the said auction and gave highest bid of Rs.5,37,50,000/- for commercial site SCO No.22, Sector 69, Mohali, and Rs.5,56,21,000/- for commercial site SCO No.23, Sector 69, Mohali. They deposited 10% of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer and also deposited 15% of the bid amount within 30 days from the date of auction. Accordingly, letters of allotment dated 30.07.2008 and 11.08.2008 were issued in their favour. They, however, did not deposit the balance amount, i.e. 75% of the total consideration. After waiting for four years, the GMADA sent notices to respondent Nos.1 and 2 calling upon them to deposit the balance amount of 75% in respect of allotment of afore-stated two commercial sites but the allottees did not care and instead sent a reply dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) exhibiting their inability to pay the balance amount of 75% citing financial restraints and asked for refund of the Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.08.19 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013 and other connected case -3- amount deposited by them. As there was no provision for surrender of the site, the Estate Officer, GMADA, Mohali, vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P-4), ordered forfeiture of 10% of the total sale consideration along with interest and penalty in favour of the GMADA and return of the balance amount to the allottees.
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2012, the allottees filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, but their appeal was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure P-
5). However, in a revision petition brought by the allottees, the revisional authority, vide order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P-6), reduced the amount of forfeiture from 10% to 5% of the total tentative price of SCO sites.
To seek quashing of the afore-stated order, these four writ petitions have been brought, two by the GMADA, i.e., CWP Nos.8825 and 9200 of 2013 and the other two by the allottees, i.e., CWP Nos.16314 and 16226 of 2013.
The averments made in CWP Nos.16314 and 16226 of 2013 filed by the allottees are in a way reply to the averments made in CWP Nos.8825 and 9200 of 2013 filed by the GMADA, and vice versa, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents in these four writ petitions to file counters.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.
It is argued on behalf of the GMADA that the impugned order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) is liable to be quashed and the entire amount of 10% of the tentative price of SCO sites is liable to be Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.08.19 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P. No.8825 of 2013 and other connected case -4- forfeited. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the allottees contends that there are instances, where the amount of the forfeiture has been reduced to less than 5% or say to 2% of the price of the sites allotted to other allottees.
From a perusal of the order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P-
6), it is found that the revisional authority afforded an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and came to the conclusion that the GMADA has not suffered any loss on account of surrender of the SCO sites and the amounts deposited by the allottees remained deposited with it and at the same time the revisional authority did not find any substance in the submissions put up on behalf of the allottees but still, to keep a balance reduced amount of forfeiture from 10% to 5%.
On examination of the order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P-6), we find that the revisional authority has taken into consideration the submissions put up for and against the order of forfeiture and has recorded its conclusion keeping ends of justice in view. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
As a consequence, all the above four writ petitions fail and are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
05.08.2013
adhikari
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh