RAM KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP No.559 and 560 of 1993, as similar controversy is involved in both the writ petitions. However, for the facility of disposal of these cases, facts have been taken from CWP No.559 of 1993.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of resumption dated 25.9.1978 (Annexure P4) along with forfeiture of 10% of the consideration money of site No.154, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh. Challenge has also been raised to order dated 1.8.1980 (Annexure P6) and order dated 9.11.1981 (Annexure P7) whereby the appeal and revision petition respectively against the order of resumption dated 25.09.1978 have been dismissed.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that site No.154, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh was allotted to Sant Ram and Des Raj on 8.7.1968 in an open auction, which was subsequently purchased by one Smt. Devinder Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 11.7.1972. The said site was further sold to respondents no.5, 6 and 7 vide registered sale deed dated 27.2.1976. The petitioner who is a tenant since 1978, has been carrying on the business of karyana merchant in a portion of the premises since the very inception of his tenancy. In order to carry on his business, the petitioner applied for sale tax registration number, which was duly granted to him for trading and resale of karyana goods by the concerned authority. Even the Food Supplies Department also issued various licenses for sale and trading of rice, dal, atta, wheat and edible oils etc. It has been further averred that the site in question was allotted as a godown by the Estate Officer, but the petitioner was never made aware about it and he continued with the karyana shop. In the year 1976, a show cause notice under Section 8 -A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation), Act, 1952 (for short, "the 1952 Act") was issued to the owner namely Smt. Devinder Kaur for the alleged breach of conditions of sale and for this purpose, a notice of resumption of the site was issued by respondent no.4 on 11.5.1976 (Annexure P1). Since by that time the site in question was purchased by respondents no.5 to 7 through registered sale deed dated 27.2.1976, an appeal against the order of resumption was filed by respondents no.5 to 7 before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh i.e. respondent no.3, who vide order dated 31.5.1977, remanded the case back to the Estate Officer, since he had allowed the change of trade in a number of cases on payment of differences of price and the respondents no.5 to 7 were also prepared to get the trade of their shop changed by making payment of an additional sum. On remand, when the case was taken up by respondent no.4, the owner did not pay the conversion fee and therefore, the respondent no.4, vide order dated 25.9.1978, (Annexure P4) ordered resumption of the site in question along with forfeiture of 10% of the consideration money. Against the order dated 25.9.1978 (Annexure P4), respondents no.5 to 7 preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the 1952 Act. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.08.1980 (Annexure P6), as respondents no.5 to 7 were not prepared to get the trade of the said site changed from godown to general trade by paying the requisition composition fee.