Jagdish Rai and Others vs Chandigarh Administration and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—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

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.

Petitioner, Harpreet Kaur and others are transferees of site No. 317-318, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, which were originally allotted to Ramesh Kumar and others under the Rules of 1973 Proceedings were initiated against them for alleged violation of the building rules. After giving notice and opportunity of hearing, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of Estate Officer, Chandigarh cancelled the lease vide order dated June 7, 1982. Simultaneously he ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium and ground rent; The appeal and the revision petition preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Chief Administrator and Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh.

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.

Admittedly the petitioners have made constructions in violation of the building rules and the conditions of allotment. Each one of them was given notice and opportunity of hearing by the Assistant Estate Officer before cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the premium and ground rent. Neither before the Assistant Estate Officer nor before the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authorities, nor before this Court the petitioners have been able to show that the findings recorded by the Assistant Estate Officer regarding violation of building rules and the conditions of allotment are incorrect or erroneous. Rather, most of the petitioners have admitted the factum of violation. Therefore, keeping in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Babu Singh Bains etc. Vs. Union of India and others etc., , we do not find any reason or justification to quash the impugned orders. However, we cannot also ignore the fact that a period of one decade or more has passed since the initiation of proceedings against the petitioners. During this period the Chandigarh Administration has relaxed the building rules and have ordered compounding of some of the violations. In view of this interest of justice warrants that one opportunity is given to the petitioners to seek compounding of the violations and remove such all the violations which are non-compoundable as per the existing policy. Consequently, we dispose of these petitions with the following directions :-

1) Within two months from today, the petitioner(s) shall make an application to the competent authority seeking permission for compounding of the violations of the building rules and the letter of allotment or conveyance deed. Simultaneously the petitioners(s) shall give in writing that they are ready and willing to pay the compounding fee and interest as per the existing policy of the Chandigarh Administration. They shall also give in writing that the non-compoundable violations will be removed within the specified time schedule.

2) Within one month of the receipt of the application of the petitioner(s) the competent authority shall make an order indicating therein as to which of the violations are compoundable and which are not. It shall also indicate the compounding- fee and interest payable by the petitioner. The amount of interest shall be calculated from the date of first notice till the date of passing of the order.

3) Within two months of the passing of the order by the competent authority, the petitioner(s) shall deposit the compounding fee alongwith the interest payable from the date of first notice to the date of order.

4) The petitioner(s) shall give undertaking to, remove such all the violations which are held to be non-compoundable within a period of six months and they shall physically remove the violations within that period.

5) The amount of forfeiture ordered by the Assistant Estate Officer shall be deposited within four months from today alongwith interest @ 12% calculated from the date of cancellation of the lease.

6) In case the petitioner(s) comply with the above direction, the lease of the property shall remain intact and the property shall not be resumed by the Administration, also the orders Annexures P-7, P-11 and P-13 shall stand automatically revived and the respondent shall be free to recover possession of the property from the petitioner(s) in accordance with law.

A copy of this order be sent to the petitioners as well as to the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh by registered post.