CWP No.10113 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10113 of 1988 Date of Decision:- February 22, 2010 Lt.Col. Gurdial Singh and another ...Petitioners VERSUS Estate Officer-cum-Acquisition Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjev Walia, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners are seeking to quash the order dated 11.7.1988 issued by the 3rd respondent, Chief Commissioner-cum-Advisor to the Administrator directing resumption of the property for non-completion of the building within the stipulated time mentioned in the allotment and the subsequent orders of eviction notice, consequent on the impugned order of resumption. 2. The original order of resumption had been made on 8.1.1979 for non-completion of construction and in an appeal filed under the relevant provisions of law, the Appellate Authority had granted permission to have completion of construction before 31.3.1981. The construction had been completed only partially and sewerage and water connection had been given. The revision was however dismissed for non-completion of construction. 3. The cancellation of the allotment for non-completion of CWP No.10113 of 1988 -2- construction within the stipulated period was originally envisaged has gone through several vicissitudes through legislative and executive interventions issued under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Chandigarh Estate Rules of 2007. Rule 12 of Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960 provided for completion of constructions within five years from the date of issue of allotment. The power is given to the Estate Officer to extend the period, if he is satisfied that the delay caused in building construction was beyond the control of the transferee. The extension was possible under the said rules if an extension fee was paid as prescribed by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time. Rule 12 was modified subsequently through notification issued on 13.6.1995 that allowed to a transferee to build the construction within extended period of three years on payment of extension fee, in so far as it allowed for completion of building before 2.9.1995. The Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 has further modified the Rules which through Rule 8 states that the allottee/transferee should complete building within three years from the date of delivery of possession. Under Rule 6 a person who could not complete the building within such time as aforesaid should be granted opportunity to complete the building in the next five years on payment of penalty in the manner stipulated under Rule 8 that provides for 10% of total consideration will be paid in first year, 15% by the second year, 20% by the third year, 25% by the fourth year and 30% by the fifth year. According by the notification issued in the year 1995 providing for extension of time upto 2.9.1995 and a recent disposition that obtains through Rule 8 of Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, the issue of resumption of property for non-completion of construction by 31.3.1981 has lost significance. The order of resumption impugned, is liable to be quashed and the Chandigarh Administration shall however always have a right to direct the owners to abide regulations, if there had been any default in the manner CWP No.10113 of 1988 -3- contemplated either under Rule 12, as modified by notification referred to above or Rule 8 of Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007. 4. There is a CM No.16592 of 1988 which has been at the instance of the applicant who claims that he had undertaken to purchase the property from the first petitioner alongwith power of attorney. The entire consideration had been paid by him and any order that the petitioner obtains, shall enure to his favour. The contention of the first petitioner however is that the power of attorney has been cancelled to which the respondent would submit that Power of Attorney is coupled with interest and hence irrevokable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and hence would be entitled to ignore such cancellation of Power of Attorney. The second petitioner's claim to be a subsequent transferee from the first petitioner. The dispute between the petitioners and the applicant in CM cannot be decided in these proceedings and whatever rights that they mutually can work out, shall be done independently. This writ petition is passed only as so far as it is relevant that the order of resumption and eviction notice issued subsequent thereto are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed, reserving to the private individuals the right to adjudication regarding title and possession between themselves in appropriate independent proceedings. 6. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. February 22, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE