SANT SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was listed for arguments on 8.9.1998 and 9.9.1998. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on either of these dates and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, we had dismissed the petition on 9.9.1998. However, by an order passed on 7.12.1998 in C.M. No. 27490 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, the order dismissing the writ petition was recalled. Arguments in the main case were again heard on that very day and the case was adjourned for today in order to enable the petitioner to file an undertaking to make payment of the dues as assessed by the competent authority. Shri S.S. Shergill has filed an undertaking of the petitioner. The same is taken on record.

(2.) THE averments made in the writ petition and the written statement show that proceedings under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of misuse of residential premises allotted to him. After hearing the petitioner and the Principal of the School which was in occupation of the residential premises, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory Chandigarh passed order dated 28.9.1990 for resumption of the site and forfeiture of 10% of the price plus interest. The appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh vide their orders dated 6.11.1990 and 26.6.1991. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ordered the petitioner's ejectment from the premises in question. These orders were challenged by the petitioner in civil writ petition No. 12355 of 1991 which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14.8.1991. That order reads as under :

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears attractive but it cannot stand scrutiny. Perusal of the record shows that CWP No. 12355 of 1991 was dismissed by a speaking order. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the legality of the order of resumption as well as the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities were considered and found untenable. The petitioner could challenge the dismissal of his writ petition by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Admittedly, he did not adopt that course. Therefore, the order dated 14.8.1991 passed by this Court dismissing his earlier petition must be treated as final and the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of those orders which were unsuccessfully challenged in the earlier petition. The fact that in this petition he has also challenged the order passed by the revisional authority on 13.11.1991 rejecting his review application cannot be made basis for entertaining the petitioner's prayer to quash the order of resumption.