GURSHARAN KAUR Vs. U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pertinent question that arises for consideration of the Court in this writ petition is, whether an order of determination of charges for re-transfer of plot passed by the Estate Officer is appealable and/or revisable within the provisions of The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

(2.) THE controversy arising out of undisputed facts is that the petitioner is the owner of the site No. 28, Sector 10-C, Chandigarh, a 5 kanals Plot. This was resumed on account of misuse by the petitioner as a 'Guest House'. The order of resumption was challenged by the petitioner upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India without any success. The petitioner on 4.10.1999 submitted an application to the Estate Officer for re-transfer of the site under Rule 11(d) of the Rules. On this application, an order was passed by the Estate Officer on 12.1.2000 declaring that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 88,73,671/- as re-transfer charges. Objections were filed by the petitioner to this assessment on 3.2.2000. However, the Estate Officer, maintained his earlier order and rejected the objections vide order 13.6.2001. Against this order the petitioner filed a revision petition No. 176 of 2001 before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/4. The petitioner also deposited the required amount before filing the revision in accordance with law. The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 1.4.2003 dismissed the revision on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. Aggrieved from this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) WE have already noticed that the facts are not in controversy. As such, the learned counsel appearing for Chandigarh Administration argued the matter to contend that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the order of the Estate officer is final and cannot be questioned either in appeal or in revision before the authorities. He further contended that the computation of re-transfer charges is in consonance with law and does not call for interference and as such the writ petition should be dismissed.