CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of resumption passed by the Chandigarh Administration having been set aside by the learned single judge, the allottee-owner of the premises as well as the Chandigarh Administration have filed these two letters patent appeals. Since both the appeals are directed against one judgment, these can be disposed of by a common order. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) Bay Shop No. 56-57, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh, is the bone of contention. On April 15, 1963, this site was allotted to Smt. Joginder Kaur, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 641 of 1992. The site was meant to be used for setting up an Atta Chakki a flour mill. It appears that the allottee raised the construction and let out the premises to Ram Gopal. He set up a flour mill in the premises. He having expired, his son Ashwani Kumar stepped into his shoes. The tenant started selling articles of grocery. Consequently, proceedings for resumption of the site on account of "misuse" were initiated. Ultimately, vide order dated September 4, 1976, the site was ordered to be resumed. A copy of this order is at Annexure R-4/2. The tenant's appeal was dismissed vide order dated December 28, 1976 He challenged the order of resumption passed by the Estate Officer as also the order passed by the appellate authority by filing civil writ petition No. 1559 of 1977. Simulatenously, it appears that he also filed a revision petition against the order passed by the appellants authority before the Chief Commissioner. On January 7, 1981, the civil writ petition was allowed. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.

(3.) After the remand, the Chief Administrator, allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and set aside the order of resumption vide order dated August 12, 1981. In this order, it was specifically held that the restoration of the site "is, however, subject to the condition that the premises are not put to misuse again. This should be ensured by the transferee (the allottee) as well as by the appellants (tenants). The Estate Officer is also directed to get the premises inspected periodically with a view to finding out whether or not these are being used for the trade for which the site was sold. In case it is found that the premises are being misused again, both the Estate Officer and the transferee shall take appropriate legal action against the tenants". A part of the amount which had been towards the price of the site was ordered to be forfeited. A revision petition against that order was dismissed.