RAJESH KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the case set up by the petitioner, the brief facts are that booth No.1, Mauli Jagran Complex Chandigarh was allotted by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to one Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Sansar Chand on 28.8.2002, who was required to pay a sum of Rs. 7,15,000/- as price of the plot in three installments of Rs. 2,15,634/- each due on 28.8.2003, 28.8.2004 and 28.8.2005. The allotment in favour of Pawan Kumar was cancelled on 11.3.2004 because he failed to pay the installments. On 6.10.2005, Pawan Kumar was served with a show-cause-notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 [for short 'the Act'] and on 29.2.2006, order of eviction under Section 5(1) of the Act was passed by the SDM (exercising the powers of Estate Officer under the Act). The petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of Pawan Kumar running a Chemist shop in name and style of M/s Tushar Medicos, filed appeal under Section 9 of the Act against the order of eviction dated 29.2.2006 on the ground that he was not granted opportunity of hearing though he was in occupation but his appeal was dismissed on 3.9.2009 by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The petitioner challenged that order by way of CWP No.15234 of 2009 and alleged that there is a policy of Chandigarh Administration to sell such property to the occupants. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 14.10.2009 observing that "Petitioner may file an application detailing the broad contours of the policy, under which he is entitled to the ownership/allotment of the demised premises. If such an application/representation is filed, the same shall be decided within three weeks after receipt of certified copy of this order, by passing a speaking order."

(2.) It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not possess copy of any representation which was required to be filed by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 14.10.2009. Respondent No.1, thus, passed the order on 13.9.2013 in the following manner: -

(3.) It is noticeable that in the order dated 14.10.2009, the protection was granted to the petitioner against any coercive method for the purpose of seeking his eviction provided he files representation within three weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order but the petitioner kept quite for three years and did not file any representation, enjoyed possession of the demised premises and when the order was passed by respondent No.1 on 13.9.2013, the present writ petition has been filed in order to take benefit of some other policy dated 29.3.2012. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was required to bring on record the policy which was in existence at the time when order dated 14.10.2009 was passed by this Court in CWP No.15234 of 2009 but despite asking repeatedly, the petitioner has submitted that he does not possess the said policy. Thus, the petitioner appears to have taken the Court for a ride when the statement with regard to existence of the policy was made in CWP No.15234 of 2009 that is why he did not file any representation within the prescribed period of three weeks and continued to enjoy the possession unauthorizedly for over a period of three years though the allotment in favour of the owner/allottee had already been cancelled on 11.3.2004.