CWP No.8852 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8852 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.09.2010 **** Bimal Sharma . . . . Petitioner VS. UT Chandigarh & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner, being the highest bidder in an auction held on 07.01.1990, was allotted Booth Site No.791 in the Motor Market and Commercial Complex, Mani Majra, Chandigarh. The petitioner has admittedly paid the entire allotment price as well as the extension fee. The site, however, has been resumed vide order dated 15.05.2008 (Annexure P13) passed by the Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in exercise of the powers of Estate Officer under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 CWP No.8852 of 2009.doc - 2 – on the ground that despite sufficient opportunities given, the petitioner has failed to raise the construction. It was also mentioned that as per the last opportunity granted to the petitioner, he was required to construct the booth upto 31.03.2008 but instead of doing so, he moved an application on 31.03.2008 for the delivery of possession to him. (2). On the other hand, the petitioner’s consistent stand has been that he could not raise the construction due to non-delivery of the physical possession of the site in dispute despite his repeated representations. A specific plea to this effect was raised by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority also as is duly noticed in para 3 of the revisional order dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P16). The Revisional Authority still dismissed the Revision Petition after observing as follows:- “After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 24.08.2007 granted last opportunity to those allottees who have not completed the construction of the building. Moreover, the Secretary-cum-Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh had given sufficient CWP No.8852 of 2009.doc - 3 – opportunities to the petitioner, but he failed to avail the same. The petitioner has even not commenced construction after the expiry of 19 years from the date of auction. Therefore, I see no reason to give any relief to the petitioner and while upholding the order of the Chief Administrator, dismiss the present petition being devoid of merits.” (3). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record an order dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P18) passed by the Chief Administrator, UT Chandigarh in Appeal No.114 of 2009 (The Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited Chandigarh v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & another), whereby, the resumption order of SCO site No.702, Mani Majra, Chandigarh was set aside and the Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. being “wholly-owned Cooperative Bank of Chandigarh Administration” has been granted extension to raise construction in terms of the latest Circular/Order dated 01.12.2009 of the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner also made a representation to the respondents to grant him extension to raise CWP No.8852 of 2009.doc - 4 – construction in terms of the said Circular/order dated 01.12.2009. This Court vide order dated 30.07.2010 also directed the respondents to consider the said representation/application of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P18) passed by the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh in the case of Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra). However, the application has been turned down vide an order dated 06.09.2010, a copy whereof handed over in Court is taken on record. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the solitary explanation/plea taken by the petitioner that the physical possession of the site was not delivered to him due to which he could not raise the construction, though has been specifically taken by him before the Revisional Authority but has not been dealt with at all. (6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned revisional order dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P16) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the revisional authority to decide the petitioner’s revision petition afresh in accordance with law, as early as CWP No.8852 of 2009.doc - 5 – possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). The Revisional Authority shall keep in view the latest Circular/Instructions dated 01.12.2009 while considering the petitioner’s claim to grant him last opportunity to raise the construction. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.09.2010 vishal shonkar