MOHINDER VERMA Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the prayers made in these petitions are not identical, we are deciding them by one order because the order of resumption of site No. 15, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, which is the foundation of action taken for ejectment of the petitioners is common to both the cases.

(2.) The facts necessary for deciding these petitions are that house built on site No. 15, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh was ordered to be resumed by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh under Section 8-A, of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as '1952' Act') as amended by Chandigarh Amendment Act No. 17 of 1973. The appeal filed by the petitioner, Dr. Mohinder Verma, who was one of the tenants in the said house, against the order of resumption, was dismissed by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on July 17, 1990. His revision petition was dismissed on 6.5.1992 by the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the State Government. In the meantime, proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act') were initiated against the petitioners Mohinder Verma, Krishan Lal Thakur and against the other tenants as well as the owner Shri Waryam Singh. After issuing notices to them, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971, issued order dated 26.9.1989 directing the ejectment of the petitioners and others. The appeals filed by all the tenants were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 13.1.1992.

(3.) The petitioner, Mohinder Verma, has challenged the order of resumption primarily on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. He has pleaded that notice and opportunity of hearing was not given to him before the Assistant Estate Officer passed the resumption order. He has also challenged the order passed under the Act of 1971 on the ground that the resumed site cannot be treated as public premises for the purpose of the 1971 Act.