Roshan Lall vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The orders Annexures P-2, P-7 and P-9 passed respectively by the Deputy Chief Administrator, the Chief Administrator and the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the rules made thereunder are under challenge in this petition filed by Roshan Lal.

Perusal of the record shows that tenement Set No. 702/3, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26 was allotted to Shri Ram Swaroop on 7.1.1978 under ''The licensing of Tenements and Transit Sites in Chandigarh Scheme, 1975''. Due to the non-payment of the license fee, proceeding under clause 19 of the 1975 scheme were initiated by the Deputy Chief Administrator against Shri Ram Swaroop. Order Annexure P-2 dated 3.4.1979 was passed by the competent authority terminating the licence of Shri Ram Swaroop. Simultaneously, it was declared that the possession of Ram Swaroop over the tenement set will be treated as unauthorised and if he fails to hand over the same, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, may be initiated. Shri Ram Swaroop did not challenge the order Annexure P-2 during his life time. He died on 4.5.1986. After almost 11 years of the passing of the order Annexure P-2 and 4 years of the death of Ram Swaroop, the petitioner filed an appeal under clause 28 of the scheme. The Chief Administrator dismissed the same vide his order dated 19.6.1990. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground of arbitrariness, non-application of mind and violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents have defended their decision by contending that late Shri Ram Swaroop did not pay the licence fee. They have also pleaded that the orders passed by the Chief Administrator and the Adviser to the Administrator do not suffer any error of law.

When this case was taken up yesterday, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, it was adjourned for today in order to enable Shri Aggarwal to inform the court about the present position of the tenement. Today also no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Aggarwal stated that unauthorised occupation of the tenement is still continuing.

We have heard Shri Aggarwal and have perused the record. There is no dispute between the parties that Shri Ram Swaroop did not file appeal against the order dated 3.4.1979 till he died on 4.5.1986. After about 4 years of his demise and after about 11 years of the passing of the order Annexure P-2, the petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator on 18.6.1990, by passing a detailed speaking order. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Adviser to the Administrator on the ground that there is no provision in the scheme for filing of revision petition.

Perusal of the order dated 18.6.1990 shows that the Chief Administrator dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by recording the following reasons:-

"This case has been fixed for hearing today and is taken up in the presence of the parties.Whereas, Sh. Yadwinder Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Sh. K.K. Monga, ADA is present to represent the Estate Officer. Sh. K.K. Monga, ADA has raised the preliminary objection that this appeal is badly time barred and be dismissed on this score alone. He has pointed out that whereas the impugned order was passed on 3.4.1979 and was conveyed to Sh. Ram Sarup licence vide Endst. dated 5.4.1979, the appeal was filed on 5.4.1990, i.e. 11 years after the passing of the impugned order. The counsel for the appellant when asked to explain the delay in filing the present appeal could not render a satisfactorily explanation and has simply stated that the appeal was filed after the appellant gained knowledge of the impugned order. He has nothing to say.

I have considered the arguments of both the parties and have also appraised the record of this case. Therefrom, I find that the impugned order was passed against Sh. Ram Sarup licencee of tenement No. 702/3, Sector 26, Chandigarh by the competent authority on 3.4.1979 and was conveyed to the said appellant Sh. Ram Sarup father of the appellant vide Endst. dated 5.4.1979. As against it the present appeal could be filed before the undersigned within thirty days of the date of communication of the impugned order. This appeal having been filed 11 years after the passing and communication of the impugned order is badly time barred and cannot be entertained at this belated stage. Further more the appellant has no cause of action to agitate the impugned order because he is not the aggrieved person. The said tenement was allotted to Sh. Ram Sarup and the appellant according to him is the brother of the licensee who has already expired. A licence being non-transferable and non-inheritable the said tenement cannot be transferred either to the appellant or to the legal heirs of Sh. Ram Sarup deceased. In view of what has been stated above this appeal is dismissed."

In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the Chief Administrator are relevant and germane to the issue of entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner after 11 years of the passing of the order dated 3.4.1979. The appellate authority has rightly observed that no explanation has been given by the petitioner for filing appeal after lapse of more than a decade. Before this Court also, no explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why he could not file appeal for a period of 4 years after the demise of his father. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as barred by limitation.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a logical consequence the interim order passed on 24.7.1991 stands vacated.