IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16496 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Smt.Ram Piari Petitioner Versus U.T. Administration and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents ….. Jasbir Singh, J. C.M. No.13306 of 2009 Application allowed, replication is taken on record. CWP No.16496 of 2008 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash order dated 26.9.2007 (P7), directing her to pay charges towards misuse of the building, upto the date of inspection i.e. 25.9.2007. Further challenge is to the order dated 2.7.2008 (P9), dismissing revision petition filed by the petitioner. Record reveals that a residential site bearing No.1517, Sector 22B, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner, vide allotment letter dated 16.1.1953. As per terms and conditions of the allotment, site in question could have been used for residential purpose only. During inspection, it was found that site was being used for purpose other than specified i.e. the Civil Writ Petition No.16496 of 2008 premises were being used for running the business of repairing the Photostat machines. Show cause notice was issued on 28.11.2003 to the petitioner and the occupier of the building for resumption of the site under Section 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (in short the Rules). Notice to impose penalty was also served upon them. Large number of opportunities were given to the petitioner and the occupier to remove the misuse at the site but they failed to do so. Accordingly, vide order dated 2.3.2005, site was resumed and 10% of the total amount of consideration money was ordered to be forfeited. Petitioner went in appeal. Taking note of the inspection report dated 25.9.2007, wherein it was mentioned that misuser has been stopped, the appellate authority set aside the resumption order, site was restored to the petitioner, however, the petitioner was directed to pay misuse charges upto the date of inspection i.e. 25.9.2007, as per rules. Petitioner filed a revision petition, which was dismissed on 2.7.2008 (P9). Hence, this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to the inspection report, made earlier to the order of resumption in the year 2005, tried to impress upon this Court that in fact, there was no misuser of the site in question and as such, resumption order passed, was not justified. He prayed that in view of above, order dated 26.9.2007, to the extent, directing the petitioner to pay misuse charges, be set aside. This Court feels that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. Misuse of the site in dispute was proved on record. Resumption proceedings were initiated on receipt of inspection report, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the site in question was being used for repair of the Photostat machines. During proceedings, many opportunities were 2 Civil Writ Petition No.16496 of 2008 given to the petitioner and occupier of the building to remove the misuser, however, they failed to do so. Consequently, resumption order was passed. Misuser was virtually admitted before the appellate authority by counsel for the petitioner by stating that previously, the site was given on rent to an Advocate, who was keeping his Photostat machines for his professional work. Counsel then made a prayer that in view of stoppage of misuse, the site may be restored to the petitioner. Thereafter, taking note of inspection report dated 25.9.2007, wherein, it was stated that misuse has been stopped, resumption order was set aside, however, for the intervening period, the petitioner was directed to make payment of charges towards misuser of the site in question. This Court feels that order passed is perfectly justified. Before passing the resumption order vide order dated 2.3.2005, stating nature of misuse of the site, notice was issued to the petitioner and the occupier to show cause as to why building be not resumed. Despite receipt of notice and opportunities given, none appeared before the competent officer. Misuser was also not removed. Defence that there was no misuser, was never agitated before the Estate Officer when above said show cause notice was issued. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 11.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3