Land Allotment Dispute in Chandigarh: Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh High Court Hearing

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh vs. Rajan Soi & Others, addressed a dispute over the cancellation of a land allotment in Chandigarh. The ruling, delivered by Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, set aside the High Court’s direction for reconsideration and remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

Background of the Case

The dispute pertained to the cancellation of a plot bearing No. 192, Sector 40, Chandigarh, which was originally allotted to Milkhi Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, passed multiple orders for the cancellation of the allotment due to non-payment of installments.

The writ petitioners, Rajan Soi and Others, challenged these orders before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that they were ready to pay the due installments and sought reinstatement of the plot under Rule 21-A of the Chandigarh Lease-Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973.

Key Legal Issues

• Was the High Court correct in directing the reconsideration of the petitioners’ case under Rule 21-A?
• Does the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jasbir Singh Bakshi vs. U.T. Chandigarh apply to this case?
• Can a plot whose allotment was cancelled due to default be reinstated through judicial intervention?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh)

The Estate Officer argued that the High Court had erred in applying the Jasbir Singh Bakshi judgment, as that case involved a resumption order rather than a re-transfer request under Rule 21-A. The petitioner contended that the respondents had already exhausted their remedies and that there was no provision for further relaxation beyond the orders passed in 1991 by the Supreme Court.

Respondent’s Arguments (Rajan Soi & Others)

The respondents submitted that they were willing to make all outstanding payments and sought reconsideration of their request under Rule 21-A, which allows re-transfer of resumed properties under specific conditions. They contended that the High Court had appropriately exercised its discretion in directing the reconsideration of their case.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Justice Kurian Joseph, delivering the judgment, stated:

“The High Court went wrong in disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the appellant to reconsider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi‘s case, which, in our view, does not apply to the case of the writ petitioners.”

The Court noted that the petitioners had a long history of litigation challenging successive cancellation orders and that a fresh evaluation was required to determine the merits of their claims under applicable laws.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s ruling, and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to re-evaluate the matter in accordance with law without being bound by its previous directions based on the Jasbir Singh Bakshi precedent.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Estate Officer, U.T. vs Rajan Soi & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-03-2016-1741853885779.pdf