Page 1

1

                       REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2008

ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS Appellant(s)

       Versus

RAJAN SOI AND OTHERS Respondent(s)

     J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Writ Petition No.  20326 of 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

Page 2

2

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, Sector 40, 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  for an 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) 10 SCC 440.  In terms of the request thus made, the writ petition  was disposed of by the impugned order.

5. Thus aggrieved, the Union Territory, Chandigarh  is before this Court in civil appeal.

6. The  main  contention  of  the  appellant  is  that

Page 3

3

Jasbir  Singh  Bakshi  (supra)  does  not  apply  in  the  case of the 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  re- transfer 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.

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 above, in our view, does not apply

Page 4

4

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.

9. No order as to costs.

             ........................J.                        (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                  ........................J.                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, March 02, 2016