Major Babu Singh Bains (Retd.) vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—A free-hold residential site No. 25, Street ''D'' Sector 21-A Chandigarh (House No. 341). R. P. 2898 was transferred in favour of the petitioner Ptoceedings u/s 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulaton) Act, 1952, (for short ''the 1952 Act'') were initiated against the petitioner by the Estate Officer. Chandigarh, on the ground that the said house was being misused as a commercial Guest House. The Estate Officer by order dated January 1, 1975 ordered the resumption of the site besides imposing other penalties. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Chief Administrator by order dated October 14, 1977. Revision Petition filed by the petitioner before the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh was also dismissed by order dated July 30, 1979. This order of resumption thus, became final. In the meantime, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971) (for short ''the 1971 Act'') as he became an unauthorised occupant after the passing of resumption order. The Estate Officer after service of notice passed an order of eviction u/s 5(1) of the 1971 Act. Appeal against the order of the Estate Officer was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The matter did not rest here. The petitioner then filed a writ petition against the order of his eviction which was also dismissed inlimine by this Court Civil Appeal No. 9102 of 1991 against the order of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated March 13, 1992. The petitioner was granted one year''s time to vacate the house in question provided he furnishes an undertaking before the Estate Officer to hand over the vacant possession of the same and that he shall not allow any person to occupy the house in any matter. The petitioner having not filed the undertaking, as directed by the Supreme Court, possession of the premises was taken over by the Estate Officer.

The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Rule 11-D of Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1960 (for short ''the Rules'') for re-transfer of the house in question. Another application under Rule 11-D (5) of the Rules was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for re-transfer.

These applications were considered by the Assistant Officer exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Application for condonation of delay was dismissed being barred by time i. e. by about 13 years and there being no good or sufficient reason for not moving the application for-re-transfer within a period of six months. The application for re-transfer was also considered on merits and was dismissed by observing that the petitioner did not stop mis-user till he was evicted under the provisions of the 1971 Act. The petitioner has thus, through this writ petition, challenged the order Annexure P-17 refusing to re-transfer the property in question under Rule 11-D of the Rules

On notice of motion being issued, written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

Sub-rule (i) of Rule 11D of the Rules provides that when a site has been resumed u/s 8-A of the 1952 Act, the Estate Officer may, on an application, re-transfer the site to the outgoing transferee on payment of an amount equal to 10 per cent of the premium originally payable for such property or 1/3rd of the difference between the price originally paid and its value at the time when the application for transfer is made, whichever is more, provided if the site has been resumed on ground of misuser, the misuser has stopped Sub rule (5) of Rule 11-D provides that no application under sub rule (1) shall be entertained unless it''is presented within six months of the date of appeal or revision as the case may be. In the present case, the order of resumption was passed on January 1, 1973 and this order became final on July 30, 1979 when the order of resumption was con6rmed in revision Application for re-transfer was jfiled in the year 1992 i. e. after a lapse of about 13 years. No justifiable cause much less a good or sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay in making the application under Rule 11 D for re transfer of the property, which was required to be filed withn six months of the order of resumption becoming final. No proceedings whatsoever were taken by the petitioner after the order of resumption became final in the year 1979 The only proceedings that continued upto the year 1992 arose from the proceedings initiated under 1971 Act for eviction from the premises after the petitioner became unauthorised occupant. No effort was made by the petitioner to move the authorities for re-transfer of the property to him for about 13 years The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting the proceedings against his eviction deserves to be excluded in view of the provisions of-Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, has no merit. No proceedings were pending or initiated at the instance of the petitioner against the order of resumption which became final in July 1979 No period thus, can be excluded on the ground that the petitioner had been bona fidely prosecuting the proceedings in a different Courts. Reliance placed on M/s. Vijay Brothers v. Union of India (1989) 95 P. L. R. 201 for excluding time has thus, no application to the facts of the present case.

Even otherwise, the application for re-transfer of the property was considered on merits by the competent authority and while dismissing the same, it was recorded in the order that misuser of the premises continued till the petitioner was dispossessed under the provisions of the 1971 Act and the possession was handed over to the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner even did not file the undertaking before the Estate Officer as observed by the Supreme Court in its order dated March 13, 1992.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then made reference to Om Parkash Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, , to contend that the High Court had given an option to the petitioner to re-purchase the site in question under the provisions of Rule 11-D of the Rules But that judgment does not help the petitioner. The petitioner has already moved the authorities under Rule 11-D and his request for re-transfer of the property has been declined. Thefore, the question of advising the petitioner that he can opt for repurchase of the site in question does not arise. It was as a matter of last resort if clarified in the above noted case that the petitioner, if so advised may apprcach the authorities for re-purchase of the site in question under the provisions of the Rules. The petitioner in the said case had challenged the order of resumption as also the order of eviction by filing two separate writ petitions.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.