GURDEV SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plot No. 279, (Phase-I), Industrial Area, Chandigarh was allotted to M/s Dharam Raj Ram Prakash of Pump Motor Workshop, Mani Majra on the terms and conditions incorporated in the letter of allotments dated 8.3.1967. After payment of full price by the allottee, deed of conveyance dated 1.7.1970 was executed in its favour by the Chandigarh Administration. In the meantime, the allottees executed a deed of mortgage and also a general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. The possession of the plot was also transferred to the petitioner, after which he took steps for construction of building. On 21.1.1983, the allottees, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. However, his request for transfer of plot in his name and for issuance of revised letter of allotment was turned down by the Estate Officer on the ground that the plot in question has already been resumed.

(2.) Perusal of the record shows that proceedings for resumption of the plot in question were initiated by the Assistant Estate Officer on the ground of violation of Rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952. Vide order dated 27.12.1983, he directed resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the consideration money. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on the ground of delay and also on the ground that he cannot be treated as an aggrieved person. The revision petition filed by him was also dismissed by the Adviser to the Administrator on 15.11.199 on similar grounds. These orders were challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 8836 of 1992. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, an objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that his application for transfer stands rejected. That petition was disposed of by the High Court on 14.5.1993 with the following order:-

(3.) Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted application Annexure P-9 dated 31.5.1993 for transfer of the plot in his name but he failed to persuade the Estate Officer to accept his request. Instead, the Assistant Estate Officer issued notice dated 13.7.1993 requiring M/s Dharam Raj Ram Prakash and the petitioner to show cause as to why the plot be not resumed on the ground of breach of the terms and conditions of allotment and deed of conveyance. The allegation enumerated in the notice was that the transfer of plot by the allottee before expiry of the restricted period of 5 years from the date of completion of building is violative of the terms of allotment. The petitioner contested the notice and urged that there was no valid reason for resumption of the site, particularly, when the High court had already set aside the previous order of resumption. The Assistant Estate Officer did not accept this submission. He again resumed the site vide order dated 15.9.1993. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator respectively.