Balbir Kaur vs Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh

G.S. Singhvi, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 28.12.1975 and 30.12.1975 and 28.6.1983 passed respectively by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, the Chief Administrator and the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh.

The facts necessary for deciding this petition are that SCO Nos. 101103, Sector 17C, was purchased in the year 1967 by Shri Kehar Singh father of the petitioner in her name. On 3.8.1974, the Estate Officer issued notice to the petitioner under Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1952'') requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the site allotted to her be not resumed on account of violation of the conditions of allotment and Rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). After granting one adjournment at the petitioner''s request, the Estate Officer passed the order dated 28.12.1974 for resumption of the site on the ground specified in the notice dated 3.8.1974. The operative portion of the order passed by the Estate Officer reads as under :

"In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to allow any further adjournment and ex parte proceedings were taken. The various violations committed by Smt. Balbir Kaur constitute serious breach of conditions of sale. Therefore, I, M.G. Devasahayam, I.A.S., Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh in exercise of powers vested in me u/s 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Chandigarh Amendment Act, 1973 hereby resume said site and further forfeit 10% of the price of the site i.e. Rs. 9,010/.

Issued under my hand and seal this day 28.12.1974."

The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by the Chief Administrator who passed the following order :

"i) Since the appellant has violated the building Rules which she admits in her appeal, she has created addition and covered space to her advantage it would therefore be proper if she is made to pay compensation as provided in Section 15 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 in my opinion an amount equivalent to 20% of the capitalised value of the additional rent expected to be derived from the extra space would be reasonable compensation. Calculated on the basis of 30 paise per sq. ft. per month which is reported to be the average rental value of basement in Sector 17 and capitalizing this at an interest rate of 6% per annum (the rate of interest charged by the administration on deferred payments of instalments of price of plots sold by auction or allotment) the amount of capitalized value comes to Rs. 8,978.00 and the compensation on the basis of 20% works out to Rs. 29,928/. If the appellant want to retain the additional space constructed under the public corridor in violation of the Building Rules, she must pay this compensation value under Section 15 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 by 16th February, 1975. This is based upon the principle laid down by the Chief Commissioner while deciding the revision petition of Shri Prakash Chand Ohri on 15.10.1975.

ii) The appellant should submit a revised plan within one month for getting this violation regularised of three months.

iii) The appellant should get it compounded by paying Composition fee.

iv) The appellant should submit a revised plan within one month for getting it regularised and get the same sanctioned in a total period of three months.

v) The appellant should demolish the partition within 10 days and if she fails to do so, the SubDivisional Officer (Building) should demolish the same thereafter at her cost.

vi) The height of the mumty should be brought down to the level of the skyline.

Announced in the presence of the parties.

Sd/

Chandigarh"

Chief Administrator,

the 30th December, 1975.

Chandigarh

Not fully satisfied with the concession given by the appellate authority, the petitioner moved the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh by filing revision petition which was dismissed on 28.6.1983. The petition filed for revision of the order dated 28.6.1983 was also dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on 19.10.1983.

Although the petitioner . has challenged the impugned orders on various grounds set out in the writ petition and the respondents have defended the order of resumption by reiterating that the petitioner is guilty of violating the conditions of allotment and the building rules, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the Court may allow the petitioner the benefits of the order dated December 31, 1975 passed by the appellate authority. He submitted that the administration may be directed to examine the petitioner''s request for compounding of the violations in the light of the instructions which are applicable as on date and the petitioner undertakes to deposit the outstanding dues along with interest.

Having perused the pleadings and after considering the submission of Shri Patwalia, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :

i) Within three months from today the petitioner shall deposit the amount specified in the appellate order dated December 30, 1975 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The amount of interest shall be calculated from December 30, 1975 till the date of actual payment.

ii) Within two months from today the petitioner shall submit a revised building plan. The Estate Officer/other competent authority of the Chandigarh Administration shall examine the revised plan. If it is found that the construction made by the petitioner is compoundable under the existing rules, regulations and instructions then the same be compounded by charging the prescribed fee from the petitioner. Appropriate decision on the revised building plan shall be communicated to the petitioner within one month of the submission of revised building plan.

iii) Such of the constructions which are not compoundable shall be removed by the petitioner within three months of the passing of the order on her application for sanction of the revised building plan.

iv) If the petitioner takes action in accordance with the above directions, the impugned orders shall be rendered inoperative. If she fails to comply with either of. the aforementioned directions then the order of resumption passed on 28.12.1974 shall stand revived automatically without any claim for compensation by the petitioner and the respondents shall then be entitled to lake possession of the disputed property.