BIMLA RANI AHLUWALIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this case is whether the revisional authority could, while exercising the powers under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act') uphold the forfeiture ordered by the Estate Officer even though it recorded a finding that the petitioner is not guilty of misuse of the premises allotted to her.

(2.) Perusal of the record shows that SCO' site No. 201, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner on lease in the year 1984. She constructed shop-cum-office on the site in question and inducted M/s Delight Cycles Stores as tenant in the building.

(3.) After about 7 years of the allotment of site to her, proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1973) by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, on the ground of misuse of the premises. After giving notice to the petitioner, which she failed to respond, the Assistant Estate Officer passed order Annexure P-1 and resumed the site on the ground of misuse. Simultaneously, he ordered forfeiture of 10% of the total premium i.e. Rs. 46,000/-..The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh who heard the appeal filed by the petitioner agreed with the Assistant Estate Officer that the petitioner had misused the premises by carrying out the business of repair of the cycles and sale thereof and on the basis of this conclusion, he dismissed the appeal. However, in the revision petition filed by her, the Advisor to the Administrator accepted the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that she had not misused the premises and in fact the premises were being used for the purpose for which the same was allotted. He, accordingly, quashed the order of resumption of the site. Notwithstanding this, the revisional authority maintained the forfeiture of 10% of the lease money.