Civil Writ Petition No.11558 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11558 of 1988 Date of Order: 25.04.2011 Phuman Singh (deceased) represented through his legal representatives ...Petitioner Versus Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T.,Chandiagrh. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 20.02.1980, 19.04.1988, 10.08.1982, and 18.11.1988, Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4, passed by Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh), Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh, Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration and Advisor to the Administrator, respectively. The petitioner being a local displaced person was allotted plot no.3601, Sector-37-D, Chandigarh. The petitioner was required to construct the plot within two years of the Civil Writ Petition No.11558 of 1988 -2- allotment. Vide order dated 14.01.1980, passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, as the petitioner was unable to construct the plot, the Estate Officer ordered resumption of the plot and forfeiture of 10% of the premium. The petitioner filed an application before the Estate Officer, for setting aside the ex- parte order, which was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, which was also dismissed. A revision filed by the petitioner before the Advisor to the Administrator was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to construct the plot within one year. The petitioner filed a review application before the Chief Administrator praying for some more time but the application was dismissed. In the meantime, the petitioner got the site plan approved and raised construction. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondents do not deny that construction has been raised, the writ petition should be allowed and petitioner's allotment should be regularised. Counsel for the respondents does not deny that construction has been raised but states that as construction was raised after the time granted for raising construction, the impugned orders should be affirmed. Counsel for the respondents has also filed in Court today a report submitted by the Junior Engineer duly verified by the SDO (B) stating that the site has been inspected and no building violation exists at the site. Civil Writ Petition No.11558 of 1988 -3- In this view of the matter and particularly as the house stands constructed, without any building violation, the writ petition is allowed, the order of resumption dated 20.02.1980 is set aside and the Estate Officer is directed to issue necessary occupation certificate etc. to the petitioner or his legal representatives, in accordance with law. April 25, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE