CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE ESTATE OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARHversusM/S JOHNSON PAINTS AND VARNISH CO.

       CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE ESTATE                                    A
           OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ·
                                           v;
                 ·MIS. JOHNSON PAINTS AND VARNISH CO.

                                  MARCH 22, 1996
                                                                                       B
                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK; JJ.]

          Capital ofl'unjab (Development and.Regulation) Act, 1952/Chan-
    digarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960 :
                             •
          S.8-A/Rule 11-I>-!ndustrial site-Allotment of-Resumed for default
                                                                                       c
    of allottee-Application for retransfer of site to outgoing transferee-T71ird
    pany right effected by transferee by way of will and power of attorney-Held,
    once the orig0al allotment stands cancelled and the resumption became final,
    the allottee has no right in the allotted site-Rule 11-D does not clothe such
    person with any right to allotment-It being a discretionary benefit to be given    D
>   to the outgoing transferee· in the language of the rule, the outgoing tranferee
    mus4 in fact and in reality, be the real, genuine and bona fid~ transferee--Out-
    going transferee acting for and on behalf of third party not entitled to the
    benefil              ·            .                                      .

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURIS.DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7115 of E
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.11.93 ·of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2677 of 1993.
                                                                                       F
            Aron Jaitley and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellant.


                                                   ,,
            M.L. Verma, L.K.. Pandey and Mahabir Singh for the Respondent.

            The following Order,of the Court was deHvered :

            Leave granted.                                                             G

          This appeal by special leave anses from the order of the High Court
    of Punjab and Haryana. in Writ Petition No. 2677/93, dated November 4,
    1993. The ·admitted facts are that the site bearing No. 187-B, Industrial
    area, Chandigarh was alloted to M/s. Johnson Paints & Varnish Co. for H
                                        819
    820                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A industrial use. The allottee was Kulraj Singh Paul, S/o Sardar Gurbax
     Singh. The allotment came to be made in the year. 1965 at a concessional
     rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yd. Default was committed in payment of the
      instalments. Consequently, the site was resumed on April 26, 1967. On
     payment with penal amounts prescribed under the Rules the property was
      handed over again to the respondent. Thereafter, since it was not con-
B     structed, the property was again resumed in the year 1981. The respondent
      filed the writ petition, which was dismissed. LPA was also dismissed and
      when the SLP was filed, this Court confirmed the order of dismissal. Thus
    . entitlement to the allotment became final and the controversy became
      quiteous.
c
          Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Rule 11-D
    of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules 1960 (For short, the
    'Rule'), Rule 11-D (i) envisages that where a site has been resumed under
  . Section 8-A of Act 27 of 1952 for any.reason, the Estate Officer may, on
D an application, retransfer the site to the out-going transferee on payment
  . of an amount equal to 10 per cent of the premium originally payable for
    such property or l/3rd of the difference between the price originally paid
    and its value at the time when the application for retransfer is made,
    whichever is more. The other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of
    this case including the proviso which bears relevance provided sub-clause
E (1) of Rule 11-D is satisfied. Hence they are omitted. The Estate Officer
   had refused to make retransfer of allotment and the petition was rejected.
    Consequently, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which
    w•s allowed directing the appellant to allot the site to the respondent. Thus
  'this appeal by special leave.
F
          Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
    contended that it would appear from the circumstances in this case that
    the respondent Kulraj Singh Paul is only acting for the benefit of Tejpal
    Singh Brar, Narindra Brar and Gurinder Brar, s/o Sardar Gursewak Singh
    Brar r/o 5997, Sector 18, Chandigarh. Therefore, the respondent is not a
G   transferee. The Estate Officer is not obliged to order retransfer to the
    allottee Kulraj Singh Paul. In support thereof, he read out the recitals in
    the general power of attorney, the conditions of allotment and also the
    recitals in the Will purported to have been executed by Kulraj Singh Paul
    in favour of the aforesaid three individuals. Shri M.L. Verma, learned
H   senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the condition
                CHANDIGARHADMN.v. M/S.JOHNSONPAINTS                          821

     precedent for rejection of the claim is .that the third party right is created A
     by Kulraj Singh Paul in favour of third parties. There is no evidence to
     establish that any third party rights have been effected by Kulraj Singh
     Paul The original order of rejection does not contain any reasons. The
     High Court has given valid re~sons in directing realloiment under Rule
     11-D of the Rules. Therefore, it is not a case warranting interference.
                                                                                   B
           The only question is : whether the High Court was' ju~tified in
     directing reallotm~nt of the industrial site to the respondent ? Afa~r
     looking into the, facts and ci~cumstances an~ the material before us, we are
     of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in giving the
     direction. It would appear that Kulraj Singh Paul is not acting for himsell   c
     as a transferee. He appears to be acting for and on behalf of S/Shri Tej
     Paul Brar, Narinder Brar and Gurinder. Brar, s/o Shri Gursewak Singh
     Brar. It is an admitted fact that Kulraj Singh Paul is now staying with
     Gunisewak' Singh Brar. If he really is staying as such, there is no need for
     him to mention in his rejoinder affidavit filed in this Court his factory D
     number instead of his residential number as residence. In the Power of
     Attorney, one would generally come across giving the power to specified
     individual to act for the on behalf of th.e principal. It would be redundant
     to give power of attorney in favour of three persons instead of the single
     individual to deal with a single industrial site which is the subject matter E
     of the proceedings. Unless.there is a right created in him, there would be
     no need to execute a power of attorney of the very self-same property. We
     can understand if there is any allotment made and he became the owner;
     then he may legitimately be entitled to entrust its management to any of
     his agents in whom he has confidence. It is not the situation available under
                                                                                    F
     the record. It would further be clear that a Will is purported to be created
     in favour of three parties, namely, the sell-same three persons. When the
     Will and the General Power of Attorney are read together, it would be
     clear that he is purporting to act not for' himsell, but on behall of the
     aforesaid three persons mentioned in the General Power of Attorney who
'
1·   do not appear to have a confidence in each another to obtain the property G
     from Kulraj Singh. The entitlement appears tp be on behalf of their joint
     family. Although it was to pre-empt possible claim by any one as his
     individual property, the power of attorney was executed in their favour, the     •
     question is : whether the appellant is required to regrant the industrial site
      to the said person ?                                                          H
    822                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A          It is .seen that once the original allotment stands cancelled and the
    resumption became final, the allottee has no right in the allotted site. Rule
    11-D deals with only discretionary power given to the Estate Officer. The
    only right the erstwhile outgoing transferee had was to make an application.
    On making the application, he ha~ to satisfy the criteria laid down under
B   the Rule. We doubt the very bona fides in introducing Rule 11-D to provide
    a back door entry from the lost rights. But on the facts in this case, it is
    not necessary to go into the wisdom of introducing Rule 11-D. Suffice it to
    state that it does not clothe him with any right to the allotment as of right.
    It being a discretionary benefit sought to be given to the out-going trans-
    feree in th'e language of the rule, the out-going transferee must, in fact and
C   in reality, be the real, genuine and bona fuie transferee and for him alone
    the benefit may be given for consideration .under Rule 11.

            On .the facts in this case and for the circumstances narrated above,
    it is clear that he is not a transferee. But he is acting for and on behalf of
    the aforesaid three persons. Under those circumstances, the High Court
D   was wholly wrong in giving the direction to the appellant to exercise the
    power under Rule 11-D and to r.~allot the site.

           The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.