AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Singhvi, J.—This is a petition to quash the orders dated 1.6.1979, 20.4.1982 and 6.12.1988 passed respectively by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer), Chandigarh, the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
The petitioners who had purchased 3 Bays Sites bearing Nos. 106, 107 and 108, Sector 17 in the year 1967 were proceeded against on account of violation of the building plan, the conditions of allotment and the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1952'') and the Rules framed thereunder. On 1.6.1979, the Assistant Estate Officer passed an order u/s 8-A and resumed the site in question. Simultaneously, he forfeited 10% of the consideration money. The appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the respondents No. 1 and 2.
The principal ground on which the petitioners have challenged the order of resumption is that for the so called violation of the Rules and the conditions of allotment the respondents are not entitled to resume the site. In support of this plea reliance has been placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Puri v. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh (1982) 84 P.L.R. 388 (F.B.). Another plea raised by the petitioners is that having condoned the violations made by others like Dr. P.N. Chuttani who was allotted S.C.O. Nos. 52-53-54 and the owner of S.C.O. Nos. 89-90-91, the respondents cannot resume their property.
The respondents have not contested the writ petition by filing the written statement.
During the course of hearing Shri Jain submitted that after a lapse of more than 18 years of the passing of the order of resumption, the Court may not permit the implementation of the same but may give an opportunity to the petitioners to seek compounding of the violations as per the existing regulations/instructions issued by the Administration of the Union Territory.
Having thoughtfully considered the submissions of Shri Jain, we find substantial merit in it, more so, when the respondents have not offered any explanation for adopting the policy of pick and choose for condoning the violations of the conditions of allotment and regulations in other cases.
Consequently, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-
(i) Within two months from today the petitioners shall submit the revised building plan and apply to the competent authority for compounding of violations as per the existing rules, regulations and instructions issued by the Administration in terms of the policy decisions taken by it. Within next one month the competent authority shall consider and decide the request of the petitioners for compounding of violations and communicate to the petitioners as to which of the violations are compoundable and which are not.
(ii) Within next one month the petitioners shall apply for compounding and deposit the compounding fee along with interest to be calculated @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of resumption till the date of payment. Thereafter the competent authority shall order compounding of the violations.
(iii) Such of the violations which are found not compoundable shall be removed by the petitioners within two months of the receipt of the decision of the competent authority of the application submitted by the petitioners along with the revised building plan.
(iv) The order regarding forfeiture of the 10% of the price shall remain undisturbed.
In case the petitioners fail to comply with these directions the order of resumption of site shall stand revived automatically and in that event the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any compensation.