A P SANWARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Doctor, who has set up an X-ray clinic in a residential house which was on lease with him, is aggrieved by the order of resumption passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. His appeal and revision petition having been dismissed, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that the orders be quashed and the provisions of Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 be declared ultra vires of the Constitution. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was a member of the Army Medical Corps. He took voluntary retirement in the year 1979-80. He took a part of the ground floor of House No. 3352, Sector 21, Chandigarh, on rent and set up private practice. In the year 1983, the petitioner installed an X-ray machine in the premises. The petitioner alleges that he had set up the X-ray machine with the permission of Shri S. N. Bhandari, who was then the owner of the building. In the year 1991, Shri Bhandari sold the house to Mr. K. L. Chopra. He filed a petition for ejectment against the petitioner on the grounds of personal necessity and change of user of the premises from residential to commercial. During the pendency of the petition for ejectment, Mr. Chopra unfortunately passed away. His widow and the other legal representatives were impleaded as parties. The petition for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller. An appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the appellate Court.

(3.) The petitioner states that he has been the President of the Medical Association. He had pleaded with the Administration for the allotment of plots to the members of the Medical profession at the reserved price, so that they could build their own clinics or nursing homes. The Administration instead of allotting plots at the reserved price, initiated proceedings for resumption of the premises. On July 6, 1993, the Estate Officer respondent No. 4 passed an order of resumption. Aggrieved by the order of the Estate Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator vide order dated May 23, 1995. The petitioner then filed a revision petition. Vide order dated April 10, 1996, the Advisor to the Administration rejected it. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners has filed the present writ petition.