JAGDISH RAI Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Jagdish Rai and his sons were allotted site nos. 2423 and 2424 in Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. After taking pos- session of the property they raised construction over it. On 1. 2. 1980, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration issued notice to the petitioners under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short the rules), alleging violation: of Rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 and clause 9 of the Deed of Conveyance. The leases appeared before the Assistant Estate officer on 4. 2. 1980 and admitted that the construction made by them was contrary to the letter of allotment and rules. The Assistant Estate Officer took notice of their admission, report of the Building Inspector and ordered the cancellation of the lease with forfeiture of 10% of the premium and the ground rent paid upto the date. The appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Chief Administrator and the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. The petitioners have challenged these orders on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and discrimination. CWP No. 9801 of 1989

(2.) SITE No. 149, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh was leased out to the petitioner in view of the highest bid given by her in the auction held on 18. 3. 1978. She raised construction over the site, some of which were found to be contrary to Rule 5 of the Building Rules and the conditions of allotment. The Assistant Estate Officer gave notice to the petitioner and passed the order dated 22. 10. 1979 for cancellation and passed the order dated 22. 10. 1979 for cancellation of the lease and fofeiture of the premium and ground rent. The appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, U. T. Chandigarh, The grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order are similar to those raised in CWP No. 1593 of 1984.

(3.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in any of the writ petitions. On behalf of respondent Shri Subhash Goyal has appeared only in C. W. P. No. 1583 of 1984. We have heard Shri Goyal and perused the records of the writ petitions.