PYARI Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 4.1.2000 (Annexure P-1), 14.7.2004 (Annexure P-2), 14.12.2005 (Annexure P-4) and 19.4.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the various authorities under the provisions of the Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of Cheap House No. 3095, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh allotted to late Shri Darshan Singh (husband of the petitioner) vide letter No. 13617/AII dated 29.7.1966 on account of violation of the conditions of allotment.

(2.) A perusal of the paper-book reveals that the allottee of the aforementioned house was served with a show cause notice in terms of the conditions of allotment as he had raised unauthorised constructions therein. Thereafter, he was given personal hearing, but despite the opportunity having been given to him, he did not remove the violations. Consequently, the Assistant Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide order dated 4.1.2000, resumed the house with immediate effect and also ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium of the site plus other dues payable up to the date of resumption. An appeal is shown to have been filed before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh by the allottee, which was decided on 20.2.2001 with a direction to set right the violations within a period of two months. The allottee, in the meantime, died on 6.6.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who, vide order dated 14.7.2004, condoned the delay in the filing of the revision petition and remanded the case to the Chief Administrator for passing fresh order after hearing the legal heirs of the allottee. After remand, the Chief Administrator considered the appeal afresh and finding that the violations mentioned in order dated 4.1.2000 of the Assistant Estate Officer were still existing and have not been set right despite the opportunity having been granted to the allottee or for the same reason to his heirs, dismissed the same vide his order dated 8.9.2005. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who, vide his order dated 14.12.2005, set aside the order of the Chief Administrator keeping in view her readiness and willingness to remove all the non-sanctionable violations and restored the site to the owner subject to the condition that the non-sanctionable and non-compoundable violations shall be removed within three months after which she could approach the Estate Officer for transfer of the site. Instead of proceeding in accordance with the spirit of the order of the Advisor to the Administrator, the petitioner preferred a review application before him for recalling the said order and also for grant of extension in time limit to comply with the same. However, the review application has been dismissed by the concerned authority vide order dated 19.4.2006 on the ground that there is no provision of law for entertaining such a prayer.