PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. UT CHANDIGARH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 17.5.2001 (Annexure P-1) whereby lease of tenement site No.531, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh has been cancelled and forfeiture of 10% of the premium of the site plus other dues payable to the date of cancellation was ordered. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure P-2) passed in appeal as well as order dated 19.1.2005 (Annexure P-3), passed in revision, whereby the order of cancellation of lease was set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner will remove/set right all the violations at the site, failing which, the order of cancellation of lease of the Estate Officer shall become operative. Further challenge has been laid to order of eviction dated 13.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 4.10.2011 (Annexure P- 5) whereby appeal against order of eviction dated 13.3.2007 has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that father of the petitioner Late Shri Ved Prakash was allotted a tenement site No.531, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh on lease hold and hire-purchase basis through allotment letter dated 20.8.1986 under the Scheme known as Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Service in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979 for short, ("the Scheme"). The said Scheme was aimed at for rehabilitation of economical weaker sections living in slums and labour colonies and other parts of Chandigarh by resettling them in low cost tenements and sites and to provide them better civic conditions and hygienic surroundings.

(3.) On account of breach of Clause of 16 of the Scheme as amended up to date read with Clause 13 of the allotment letter, in the year 1994, respondent no.4 initiated proceedings against the father of the petitioner for cancellation of the lease for running a karyana shop on the rear courtyard and also for construction of two rooms. Consequently, respondent no.4 passed an order dated 17.5.2001 (Annexure P-1), cancelling the lease of tenement site of the petitioner with further order of forfeiture of 10% of the premium. The said order was challenged by the father of the petitioner by way of appeal before respondent no.3. Though the running of karyana shop in the tenement site in question was reported to be stopped, yet no inclination was shown to set right the other violations. However, vide order dated 17.7.2002, while setting aside the order dated 17.5.2001, the Appellate Authority directed the father of the petitioner to remove all the violations by 31.12.2002 and to inform in writing to the competent authority i.e. respondent no.4 by 10.1.2003 that all the violations have been removed by him and in case, the he fails to set right the violations or fails to inform the competent authority i.e. respondent no.4 by 10th of January, 2003 or fails to deposit the amount of forfeiture, as stipulated in the order, the impugned order of resumption dated 17.5.2001 shall become operative.