CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Chhajju Ram (Dead) through LRs. vs Union of India

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 October 1998 · Citation: (1999) 2 PLJ 182 : (1999) 1 RCR(Civil) 660

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.Singhvi, J and Iqbal Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 9530 of 1989 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 23465 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 471 words

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1.

Arguments in the main writ petition which has been filed by Chhaju Ram for quashing the order of resumption as well as the appellate and the revisional orders was heard and the judgment was reserved on 22.9.1998. Thereafter, this miscellaneous application was filed along with the affidavit of the petitioner''s son indicating therein that the misuse of the premises has been vacated.

2.

Notice of the C.M. was issued to the respondents on October 26, 1998 and the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to get the site inspected and submit a report before the Court.

3.

In compliance of that direction, Shri Subhash Goyal, has placed the inspection report dated 28.10.1998 before the Court, a perusal of which shows that the misuse of the premises which constituted the basis of the order of resumption has been vacated.

4.

Shri Vijay Kumar son of Shri Chhaju Ram resident of SCO No. 1001 Sector 22B, Chandigarh has also filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he will not use the premises except for general trade (Departmental Store). He has also stated that the present use of the premises will continue and the premises will not be used for other purposes unless the Chandigarh Administration permits the change of user of the premises on an application made for the purpose.

5.

On our asking Shri Vijay Kumar son of Shri Chhaju Ram, who is present in Court and who has been identified by Shri Hemant Kumar, made a statement that he has stopped selling sweets and that he will not use the premises for that purpose.

6.

In view of this, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the main writ petition with the following directions:

(i) The order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh shall not be given effect to in view of the undertaking furnished by Shri Vijay Kumar coupled with the oral statement made by him in Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit the amount of forfeiture along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent within a period of one month from today.

(iii) In case the petitioner again misuses premises, the order of resumption shall stand revived and the respondents shall then be entitled to take appropriate action for securing possession of the property in pursuance of the order of resumption. They shall also be free to make an application before the Court for initiation of appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on the ground of violation of the undertaking filed before the Court. However, the application for change of user, if any made by the appropriate person, shall not be dismissed only on the ground that the order of resumption has not been quashed specifically.