SHIV DAYAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, filed for quashing the orders passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is similar to C.W.P. No. 15283 of 1994, Raj Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 238, decided on January 29, 1999 alongwith four other petitions.

(2.) IT appears from the record that built-up booth No. 5, Sector 17, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner on 14.4.1987 for a premium of Rs. 5,41,000/- for doing the trade of eatables i.e. Chana-Bhatura and Chat. In terms of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay 25% of the premium before taking possession and the remaining amount was to be paid in three equated instalments of Rs. 1,54,611/- each payable on 22.2.1988, 22.2.1989 and 22.3.1990 along with ground rent @ Rs. 13,525/- for first 33 years. After obtaining possession of the booth, the petitioner paid Rs. 2,15,250/- in five different instalments but he failed to pay full premium in accordance with the schedule of payment specified in paragraph 5 of the letter of allotment. Therefore, proceedings under the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sises and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were initiated against him. Similar proceedings were initiated against other allottees who too failed to pay premium and ground rent. By an order dated 8.7.1992, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, cancelled the lease of the booth and forfeited 10% of the premium plus interest and ground rent. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh respectively. Review application filed by him was also dismissed by the Adviser to the Administrator.

(3.) IN view of the above and for the detailed reasons recorded in the order dated January 29, 1999 passed in Raj Kumar's case (supra), which shall be treated as part of this order, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for re-transfer of the property under Rule 21-A of the 1973 Rules. The direction given in Raj Kumar's case (supra) on this issue shall also apply to the case of the petitioner. Petition dismissed.