GEETA DEVI Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, cancelling the lease of residential sites allotted to the petitioners and forfeiting 10% of the premium plus ground rent and interest.

(2.) Since the issues of fact and law which arise for adjudication in these cases are similar, we are deciding them by a common order.

(3.) Petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi, whose land was acquired by the respondents for Capital Project after 1.1.1966, applied for allotment of residential plot under the scheme known as "The Chandigarh Allotment of Sites on Lease-hold basis to the Oustees of Chandigarh Scheme, 1972" (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Scheme), by stating that she did not own a house or plot in Chandigarh either in her own name or in the name of any dependent family member. Her application was accepted by the administration and she was allotted site No. 2273(P), Sector 44-C, Chandigarh vide memo dated 13.1.1992. After taking possession of the site on 18.3.1992, she applied for sanction for the building plan which was granted by the Chief Administrator vide memo dated 26.6.1992. She completed the construction of building within next year and six months. Thereafter, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh issued occupation certificate to her vide memo dated 4.1.1994 and presently she is residing in the said building. Lease deed was also executed between the petitioner and the Administration of Union Territory on 2.4.1993. After three years of the allotment of plot and over one year of the grant of occupation certificate, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, issued notice dated 22.3.1995 under rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter described as the 1973 Rules) and asked the petitioner to explain her eligibility to be allotted site under the 1972 scheme. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 3.4.1995 running into 12 typed sheets. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order cancelling the lease of the residential site allotted to the petitioner on the ground that she has failed to explain her position with regard to her eligibility for allotment of the site under the oustees scheme and also on the ground that she is a wilful defaulter.