Partly allowed

Dalip Singh Cheema v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2011CWP/11785/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A constitutional bench quashed an order by the Advisor to Administrator which illegally restored an Estate Officer's resumption order, noting procedural illegality. The court allowed the petitioner's writ challenge and quashed the resumption orders but upheld the forfeiture of the sale consideration.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 28.4.1980 and 7.12.1988 regarding resumption of the premises are quashed. The order regarding forfeiture of 10% of the sale consideration is upheld.

Dalip Singh Cheema Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

C.M. Nos. 14442-43 of 2010 in/and C.W.P. No. 11785 of 1988

¶3

Date of decision: January 25, 2011

¶4

Dalip Singh Cheema (deceased) through L.Rs

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

U.T. Chandigarh and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by filing this writ of certiorari challenging the order dated 16.2.1982 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Chief Administrator, order dated 28.4.1980 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and the order dated 7.12.1988 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Adviser to Administrator, Chandigarh to the extent of forfeiture of 10% of the consideration price of the plot in dispute.

¶13

The petitioner is the owner of show room No.14, Sector 7, Chandigarh. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh vide ex-parte order dated 28.4.1980 (Annexure P-1) resumed the site of show room No.14, Sector 7, Chandigarh and further ordered the forfeiture of the 10% of the sale consideration of the site amounting to Rs.3,830/-. The said order Annexure P-1 has been passed under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the Act') on the ground that the allottee has permitted the use of carrying on a trade other than building material i.e. running of tea stall in the part of the building and Dr. Uppal's testing and Analytical laboratory in the other part of the building.

¶14

The facts in the background of the case are that on account of

¶15

C.M. Nos. 14442-43 of 2010 in/and C.W.P. No. 11785 of 1988

¶16

-2-

¶17

the alleged misuse of the said building against the contravention of the conditions of sale as embodied in the allotment letter, the Estate Officer while exercising the powers under Section 8-A of the said Act passed the resumption order which was challenged by the petitioner before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh who vide order dated 16.2.1982 accepted the appeal and restored the site to the appellant-petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner would get the tea stall removed within a period of three months. It was admitted by the Chief Administrator that the ejectment proceedings are pending against the owner of the tea stall. With regard to the forfeiture of 10%, the Chief Administrator directed the petitioner to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of issue of the order. The said order was issued on 5.4.1982. However, still aggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision petition against the said order dated 16.2.1982 passed by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh whereupon the Advisor to the Administrator U.T. Chandigarh exercising the powers of Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh although admitted that tea stall and fabrication of the steel business did not exist there and mis-user was removed still held that on the ground floor of the show room there was still a mis-user by the office of M/s Survir Sales Private Limited who deals in the building material and leak proof. Dr. Uppal's Testing & Analytical Laboratory also deals in the analysis of such material used for leak proofing. Ultimately in the operative part of the order dated 7.12.1988, while dismissing the revision petition, he directed the Estate Officer to eject the petitioner from the premises in question.

¶18

Now the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.12.1988 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator Annexure P-6 as well as the order passed by the Estate Officer Annexure P1 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3830/- relating to the forfeiture of the 10% of the sale consideration.

¶19

The respondents contested the petition claiming that both the orders are quite valid and genuine and now resumption order cannot be quashed.

¶20

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, it may be observed that admittedly, the Chief Administrator

¶21

C.M. Nos. 14442-43 of 2010 in/and C.W.P. No. 11785 of 1988

¶22

-3-

¶23

vide order dated 16.2.1982 had set aside the resumption order passed by the Estate Officer and restored the site to the petitioner. No appeal or revision has been preferred by the respondents against the said order, however, it was only the petitioner who had filed the revision petition under Section 10 (4) of the Act against the order dated 16.2.1982 upholding the forfeiture of 10% of the sale consideration of the site in dispute. However, though there was no appeal or revision against the order of Chief Administrator, the Advisor to the Administrator while dismissing the revision restored the order of Estate Officer which is quite illegal, inoperative, unjust, unwarranted and as such it is certainly liable to be quashed. In the absence of any appeal or revision, Advisor to the Administrator Union Territory, Chandigarh could not set aside the order passed by the Chief Administrator and only the revision petition could be dismissed. Thus, the order dated 7.12.1988 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent No.2 – Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh being against the provisions of law need to be quashed.

¶24

As regards the depositing of the amount to the extent of forfeiture of 10% of the consideration price of the plot in dispute, the petitioner has not pressed to set aside the said order. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh has also placed before me the inspection report dated 21.12.2010 which reveals that no misuser of the premises was found at the time of inspection.

¶25

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the orders dated 28.4.1980 (Annexure P-1) and 7.12.1988 (Annexure P-6) regarding resumption of the premises are quashed. However, the order dated 28.4.1980 (Annexure P-1) to the extent of forfeiture of 10% of the price of the site in question would remain intact.

¶26

(A.N. Jindal) Judge

¶27

January 25, 2011 deepak

Dalip Singh Cheema v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalip Singh Cheema v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirvail Singh and Ors. Vs Sadh Singh and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sohan Lal

Inder Vs Ram Chander and Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs Gurmeet Kaur & Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Gurmit Singh

Surender Singh & Anr. Vs Manohar & Ors.