RAM MURTI Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 18.5.2001 vide which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 2-Prem Kumar and quashed order dated 30.6.1993 passed by Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh declaiming his prayer for extension of time. The facts :

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh initiated proceedings under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (as amended by Chandigarh Amendment Act No. 17 of 1973) (for short, the 1952 Act) for resumption of the site on the ground of violation of the building rules. He issued notice to the appellant and proforma respondents and M/s. Lamona Restaurant, of which respondent No. 2 was the proprietor. They appeared before the Assistant Estate Officer to whom the case seems to have been transferred. Shri D.S. Gupta, who had appeared on behalf of the appellant, admitted the existence of violations, but expressed his client's inability to remove the same by saying that it was respondent No. 2 who had made additions and alterations. Respondent No. 2 contested the proposed resumption by contending that it was a device innovated by the landlords to secure his eviction because the proceedings initiated by them under the 1949 Act had failed. After considering the assertions made by the appellant and respondent No. 2, the Assistant Estate Officer passed order dated 18.1.1990 for resumption of the site and forfeiture of 10 per cent of the consideration money, i.e., Rs. 1100/- with interest on the ground of violation of the building rules and failure of the owners to remove the violations despite notice. The appellant and proforma respondents did not challenge the order of resumption apparently because they were interested in seeking eviction of respondent No. 2. However, the latter challenged the order of resumption by filing appeal under Section 10 of the 1952 Act, which was dismissed by Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 4.2.1992. The revision filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh and order of resumption was set aside subject to the condition that violations are set right or got compounded within 6 months. The operative part of the revisional order dated 13.5.1992 reads as under :

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 challenged orders dated 13.5.1992 and 30.6.1993 in C.W.P. No. 9285 of 1993. He averred that violations had been committed by the landlords and, therefore, he could not have been indirectly penalised by way of eviction in the garb of resumption of the site.