C.W.P. No.622 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.622 of 2009 Date of decision:23.07.2009. Chander Mohan Sahdev ...Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). By filing this writ petition, petitioner has impugned amount of penalty, imposed against him, for misuse of the property. It is not in dispute that for using the garage, in House No.11, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, for commercial purpose (printing press), petitioner received a resumption notice on 26.04.2005 (P-2). Noting violation mentioned above, the Competent Authority ordered resumption of the property in dispute on 01.02.2006 (P-3). Petitioner went in appeal. On perusal of inspection report, submitted by officers of the Department on 22.07.2008, the Competent Authority noted that misuse had been stopped and in view of that, resumption order was set aside. Site was restored to the petitioner, subject to payment of misuse charges, forfeiture, interest and other dues, within 30 days, from the date of issue of that order i.e. 31.07.2008. Petitioner went in revision, C.W.P. No.622 of 2009 -2- wherein petitioner also laid challenge to the amount calculated towards misuse charges. His revision was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2008 (issued on 26.11.2008). Hence this writ petition. It is coming out from the records that misuse charges were claimed by the respondents, on the basis of notification dated 26.05.2003 (P-12), issued under Section 9-A of Chandigarh (Sales of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, fixing rates regarding misuse of a building. Counsel for the petitioner has half-heartedly laid challenge to the notification mentioned above, by stating that for misuse only of a portion of the building, charges are being imposed for the entire covered area, which is not justified. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that argument raised by counsel for the petitioner, is liable to be rejected. Vide notification mentioned above, following rates were fixed for charging penalty amount towards misuse of site/building: - “(a) For residential and institutional premises: (i) Rs.50/- per square yard if less than 25% of the site or covered area of building is misused. (ii) Rs.100/- per square yard if 25% or more of the site or covered area of building is misused. The charges shall be levied on the entire area of the site.” This Court feels that in case of misuse of only a part of the building, there is a reason to claim misuse charges for the entire covered area. In this case, petitioner had let out garage, of his residential building, to a tenant, to run a printing press. For misuse of that part of the building, it was open to the authorities to resume the entire site. On removal of misuse, the site was restored, subject to C.W.P. No.622 of 2009 -3- payment of penalty towards misuse. In view of above, this Court feels that for misuse of part of the building, the administration is justified in claiming penalty amount for the entire covered area. The site was allotted as a one plot and building plan was also approved as one unit for that pot. As per provisions of law, it was not open to the administration to resume only part of the site/building. For violation, only in one part, the entire site/building was liable for resumption. If that is so, in the same fashion, penalty can also be imposed for misuse of part of the building, treating it as a misuse of the entire building. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. July 23, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE