K.B. Singh vs Chandigarh Administration

G.S. Singhvi, J.—These petitions have been filed by the tenants of House No. 10, Sector 15A Chandigarh for quashing the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for resumption of the house site and forfeiture of 10% of the premium. They have also prayed for quashing the order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'').

There is no dispute between the parties that proceedings for resumption of the house site allotted to Smt. Sita Devi in 1954 were initiated vide show cause notice dated 26.5.1989 on the ground of alleged misuse of the residential premises. After service of notice upon the owner of the house and two of the tenants, namely, Shri Satpal and Shri Pawan Piyush, the Assistant Estate Officer passed the order dated 12.3.1990 for resumption of the site and forfeiture of 10% of the premium. (The date of issue of this order is 23.5.1991). Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of Estate Officer, under the 1971 Act. He served notices upon the petitioners requiring them to show cause against their proposed ejectment. On 17.1.1991, the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered the ejectment of petitioners. The appeal filed by them under Section 9 of the 1971 Act were dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh.

One of the grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order of resumption, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under the 1971 Act as well as the judgment of the learned District Judge is that the Assistant Estate Officer did not give any notice and opportunity of hearing to them though they were in occupation of the premises.

At the hearing of the petition, Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration made a statement that during the pendency of these petitions Dr. K.B. Singh filed revision petition before the Adviser to the Administrator, who accepted the same and quashed the order of resumption. Shri Aggarwal further stated that in compliance of the direction given by the revisional authority, the Assistant Estate Officer issued fresh notices to the tenants but further proceedings could not be held because of the stay orders passed in those petitions.

In our opinion, the revisional authority has rightly set aside the order of resumption and remanded the case to the Assistant Estate Officer. If this had not been done, the Court would have invalidated the order of resumption on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice keeping in view the law laid down in Ram Puri v. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, A.I.R. 1982 Punjab and Haryana 301 and Surat Singh v. Haryana State and others, A.I.R. 1991 Punjab and Haryana 113. However, that is no longer necessary because the revisional authority has already remanded the case to the Assistant Estate Officer for fresh decision.

In view of the above, we allow the writ petitions and quash the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer. The order dated 17.1.1991 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is also quashed. The judgment of the learned District Judge dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners is also set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Assistant Estate Officer on 12.10.1998. They may file representation/reply within next 15 days and adduce evidence in support of their pleas against the proposed resumption of the site. Within next two months, the Assistant Estate Officer shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the affected persons including the petitioners.