Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh and Others v. Rajan Soi and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Kurian
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment Date: 2016-03-02
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The impugned High Court judgment is set aside and the writ petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; writ petition remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh and Others

Respondents

Rajan Soi and Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sangram S. Saron
• Shree Pal Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• M. C. Dhingra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal arises from a challenge to a string of orders cancelling a plot allotted to Milkhi Ram, S/o Madho Ram, in Sector 40, Chandigarh, under the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973. The writ petitioners challenged multiple annexed orders (annexures P/2, P/3, P/5, P/6, P/8, P/8A, P/9, P/11 and P/13) cancelling the plot and the proceedings for cancellation, as well as the petitioner’s readiness to clear arrears. At hearing, counsel proposed filing an application under Rule 21-A of the Rules, and sought that the matter be considered in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Jasbir Singh Bakshi v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2004) 10 SCC 440. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to re-consider the petitioners’ case in light of Bakshi. The Union Territory challenged this disposition, arguing that Bakshi does not apply to the writ petitioners’ case, which involves cancellation and time for repayment rather than a retransfer under Rule 21-A, and that the petitioners’ opportunity to seek further time had long passed (order of 12.12.1991). The Supreme Court held that, given the litigation’s background—where the petitioners challenged successive cancellation orders without addressing merits—Bakshi could not guide the case, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with no costs. The decision remits the writ petition to the High Court for lawful adjudication consistent with rule-based procedures.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 21-A of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

null

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that Jasbir Singh Bakshi (supra) does not apply to the writ petitioners. Bakshi concerned deposit and extension of time to pay the balance and involved resumption, not a retransfer under Rule 21-A. The stage for the writ petitioners to seek further time to clear defaults had already elapsed by 12 December 1991. Therefore, directing the writ petition to be reconsidered in light of Bakshi was misplaced and not applicable to the petitioners’ situation.

Contentions of Respondents

The document primarily records the appellant’s position; it does not provide a detailed recounting of the respondents’ separate arguments. What is clear is that the respondents’ case centers on the High Court’s reliance on Bakshi and the necessity to consider the petitioners’ challenge under law, though the explicit respondent-side argument is not elaborated in the provided excerpt.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jasbir Singh Bakshi v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others	(2004) 10 SCC 440	Distinguished	The Court notes Bakshi does not apply to the writ petitioners’ case, distinguishing its factual posture (deposit/extension in a resumption context) from the present cancellation/remand scenario under Rule 21-A.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 160 A ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS v. ## RAJAN SOI AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 423 of2008) B ## MARC!-! 02, 2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] c _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_ D _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_ E _;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 F (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. 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. H 160 161 ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH v. RAJAN SOI [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. 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 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 disposed of by the impugned order. B c D E 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 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 retransfer 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 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. F G H 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R. A 7. Be that as it may, 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 matter, a direction could not have been issued to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case, which we have already noted B above, in our view, does not apply to the case of the writ petitioners. 8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the writ petition to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. - c 9. No order as to costs. Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.