Follow Us:
Saturday, July 21, 2018

Resumption on non-payment ground wholly unjustified: HC

If,owing to financial constraints or some unforeseen circumstances,you fail to pay installments for a property allotted by the Administration within a stipulated period,do not fret about resumption.

Written by RAGHAV OHRI | Published: April 28, 2012 3:10:12 am

If,owing to financial constraints or some unforeseen circumstances,you fail to pay installments for a property allotted by the Administration within a stipulated period,do not fret about resumption. For,the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that cancelling/ resuming the property of an individual solely on the ground of non-payment of installments is “wholly unjustified”. This is especially so when the person concerned is ready to pay the amount and the consequential penal interest for it at a later stage.

A division bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta today directed the Administration to decide the claim of a Mohali resident who was allotted a booth in Motor Market,Sector 48C,Chandigarh,within 15 days. Sukhwinder Singh had moved the High Court alleging that his booth was resumed because he had failed to pay the 75 per cent remaining money within the stipulated period.

However,after eight years and resumption of his booth,Sukhwinder had approached the Chandigarh Administration to pay the remaining amount. His request was declined by the Administration.

Despite UT Estate Officer (EO) encashing the demand draft,the Administration dismissed the revision petition filed by Sukhwinder. Aggrieved,Sukhwinder moved the High Court. On September 21,2001,Sukhwinder was allotted booth number 159 in Sector 48C,Chandigarh. It was resumed on July 15,2009,solely on the ground of non-payment of remaining installments.

After few months,Sukhwinder approached the authorities offering to pay the remaining amount and also the interest on it. Sukhwinder said that he approached the Estate Office which dismissed his petition.

After he filed an appeal,the UT Estate Officer allowed him to deposit the amount which was allegedly encashed. However,subsequently the Chief Administrator dismissed the revision petition refusing to accept the amount.

Left with no option,Sukhwinder knocked at the doors of the High Court. Holding that resuming the property of an individual solely on the ground of non-payment of installments is wholly unjustified,the High Court has directed the Administration to decide the claim of Sukhwinder within 15 days.

If Sukhwinder is able to pay the amount,the Court has ruled,the booth must be restored to the petitioner.

For all the latest Chandigarh News, download Indian Express App