KEHAR SINGH Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE allotment letter dated 27th November, 1957, the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 47, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh, by the Chandigarh Administration. According to the petitioner, he had, got a plan sanctioned for completing a 2 1/2 storeyed house on the said plot. However, the entire 2\ storey could not be completed by the petitioner within the initial stipulated period and consequently vide order dated 26th May, 1970 (Annexure P-1) the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, resumed the site in question and forfeited 10% of the money paid in respect thereof.

(2.) THE petitioner filed appeal against the above-said order of the Estate Officer before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, and he was given opportunity to obtain the completion certificate after all the formalities had been fulfilled within a period of three months of the order which was passed on 5th July, 1971. It is not necessary to go into further details of the matter. The fact is that the petitioner could not complete the construction of the entire house, and ultimately vide order dated 13th July, 1977 (Annexure P~5), the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, passed an order, whereby the site in question that he would complete the building according to the sanctioned plan and obtain occupation certificate by 14th October, 1977.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that well before the extended date, i. e. 14th October, 1977, he had completed the entire building and had applied for the occupation certificate However, according to the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Building) told the petitioner that since it will take some time before the occupation certificate could be issued, he would be well advised to obtain further ex- tension from the Chief Commissioner. It may be observed here that no order was passed after 14th October, 1977 by the Authorities. In the order dated 13th July, 1977, the Chief Commissioner had observed that the Building Inspector had stated that during his inspection of the site on 12th July, 1978, he found the ground floor of the building complete except flooring in front and back courtyard ; first floor and Barsati floor were upto roof slab and structurally complete. The ground floor was found locked. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been denied that any application was made by the petitioner for getting occupation certificate.