INDERBIR SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.1999 (Annexure P3) passed by respondent No. 3 whereby SCF No. 20, Sector 20 -D, Chandigarh was resumed along with forfeiture of 10% of the premium of the said site plus other dues payable upto the date of resumption. Challenge has also been raised to order dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure P5) and order dated 20.7.2001 (Annexure P7) whereby the appeal and revision petition, respectively, against the order of resumption dated 30.11.1999 have been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that SCF No. 20, Sector 20 -D, Chandigarh was allotted in the name of Girdhari Lal vide allotment letter dated 10.9.1989 (Annexure P1). The said site was subsequently transferred in the name of the petitioner and another co -allottee namely Narinderbir Singh, who constructed the building and are in occupation since 1991. After registration of the sale deed, the transfer letter was issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner made certain need based changes, for which, the respondent No. 3 passed an ex -parte order of resumption dated 30.11.1999 (Annexure P3). Aggrieved against the order of resumption, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed vide order dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure P5) without deciding the issues involved in the appeal. Still aggrieved against the order dated 11.4.2001, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No. 1, who while disposing of the revision petition, vide order dated 20.7.2001 (Annexure P7), restored the site in question to the owner subject to the condition that the violations which are sanctionable, may be got sanctioned by submitting a revised plan, whereas the remaining violations, which are not sanctionable, are removed within six months from the date of dispatch of the order. It was also made clear that in case the directions are not complied with, the order of resumption dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Estate Officer shall become operative.

(3.) WHEN this matter came up for consideration of this Court on 31.1.2002, following order was passed: -