They also took back the amount deposited by them minus the amount forfeited.
The right sold in auction was the leasehold for ninetynine years.
Even a review petition filed by the respondents was rejected by the High Court.
The respondents then filed yet another petition, styling it as a mercy petition, before the advisor to the Administrator which too was dismissed.
A second review petition, however, met with success.
Having failed in the High Court, the respondents approached the Estate Officer yet again to settle their case in the light of an alleged policy of the Government to restore the plots to defaulters by charging forfeiture amount of 5.
Be that as it may, they failed to companyply with the order of the Chief Commissioner, with the result that the second review petition filed by them also stood dismissed.
A showcause numberice was issued to her proposing to cancel the lease in her favour.
The balance companysideration was payable in three equal instalments, the first of which fell due on 27 9 1976.
After giving due opportunity to the respondents, the lease was cancelled, at the same time forfeiting a sum of Rs 3450 representing 10 of the premium.
This happened in the year 1985 3 Their writ petition filed in the year 1990 WP No.
It was dismissed on 10 1 1980.
This request was rejected by the Estate Officer on 18 12 1991.
After all this, the respondents approached the High Court once again with WP C No.
After deducting the amount forfeited, the amount deposited by them was refunded in full on 25 4 1979.
3394 of 1992 for a direction to the respondents to implement the alleged policy of the Chandigarh Administration to restore the plot by charging a forfeiture amount of 5.
The Chief Commissioner directed that the plot shall be restored to the respondents provided they make the entire payment within sixty days from the date of his order.
A revision preferred against the Chief Administrators order was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on 1 1 1979.
Indeed, they speak for themselves.
The respondents defaulted in paying the same whereupon the Estate Officer issued a numberice to show cause as to why the lease in their favour be number cancelled.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator companytending only that the amount forfeited is high and that it should be reduced and the balance refunded to her.
The respondents preferred an appeal to the Chief Administrator against the said action which was dismissed on 2 5 1978.
Instead of paying the amount within the time prescribed, the respondents queried how the amount of Rs 1.02 lakhs directed to be deposited by the Chief Commissioner in his order dated 9 5 1985 was arrived at.
The respondents then applied to the Estate Officer for refund of the amount paid by them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. SLP C No.
The High Court recorded the respondents offer and directed them to bring a draft for the full amount on the next day of the hearing.
The Chief Administrator, however, reduced, the amount of forfeiture from 10 to 2 1/2.
A review petition filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Court on 29 7 1991.
They deposited a sum of rupees two lakhs purporting to be under the orders of the High Court.
The Chief Administrator allowed her appeal and reduced the amount forfeited.
Having obtained the refund of their amount, the respondents filed a review petition before the Chief Commissioner seeking review of his order dated 1 1 1979.
The writ petition has been allowed by the High Court on 14 10 1993 on the ground that inasmuch as in another case pertaining to Smt Prakash Rani, the Administrator had restored the plot to her even after her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, the respondents must also be restored the plot on the same terms.
In our opinion, the writ petition companyld number have been allowed by the High Court for more than one reason, viz.,
An allotment letter was issued on 27 11 1975.
An auction was held by the Chandigarh Administration on 29 9 1975 wherein the respondents were the highest bidders in respect of a plot admeasuring 338 sq.
Pursuant to the show cause numberice, the respondent appeared and expressed her inability to pay the amount, whereupon the lease in her favour was cancelled and an amount of 10 of the premium amount forfeited.
The respondents deposited 25 of the money immediately.
Having taken back the amount, they companyld number have agitated their right to the plot by filing companysecutive review petitions before the Chief Commissioner or by filing writ petition seeking restoration of the plot.
The respondents produced a draft in a sum of Rs 1,72,402.56p before the Court on 15 1 1991 which was kept in safe custody of the Registrar.
They also challenged the cancellation of lease effected in the year 1977 in this writ petition.
He directed that in default of such payment, the review petition shall stand dismissed, vide Chief Commissioners order dated 9 5 1985.
The respondent accordingly took back her amount minus the forfeited amount, in December 1976.
Seventeen years later, she filed the writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, being CWP No.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, Jagjit Singh and Jaswant Singh.
7760 of 1993, from which this appeal arises, challenging the order of cancellation dated 30 3 1976.
Not only the lease was cancelled but they had acquiesced in it by taking back the money 2 Be that as it may, when their second review petition was allowed by the Chief Commissioner permitting them to pay the entire amount within sixty days, the respondents failed to avail of the said companycession.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are number in dispute and may be stated.
in Sector 31 A, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs 34,500.
11609 of 1994 Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
