IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2011 The Administrator & another. -----Appellants Vs. Jamit Kaur Deol & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the appellants. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing the appellant-administration to give hearing to the respondent -writ petitioners before passing an order of resumption. 2. Property in dispute was originally allotted to one Malkiat Singh in the year 1957 who sold the same in the year 1973 to the writ petitioner-Tara Singh. On a complaint, the administration initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 alleging misuse of the premises which was followed by order dated 14.6.1977, against which appeal was dismissed on 26.9.1983 and revision was dismissed on 10.7.1989. Writ petition was filed in this Court in the year 1989. L.P.A. No.1431 of 2011 3. Learned Single Judge found that the petitioner having not been heard, such a drastic order could not be upheld. It was necessary to afford an opportunity of being heard to the affected party. Accordingly, order of resumption was set aside with liberty to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that notice was duly served on the attorney of the petitioners and thus, there was sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. The finding recorded by learned Single Judge in this regard is as under:- “6…………I am afraid, I cannot accept this plea for the only reason that a constructive notice to the owner by virtue of the fact that a notice had gone to Mr. Bhasin cannot be presumed unless it is brought out on record that the order of enquiry to Mr. Bhasin under an eviction was passed in his capacity as such power of attorney for the legal owner. The Administration cannot ride on two horses. It cannot contend that it will not recognize the fact of transfer and contend at the same time that notice to Mr. Bhasin must be taken as a notice to the owner in the capacity as such power of attorney.” The above finding of fact is not shown to be against record. Admittedly, the order was ex parte. 2 L.P.A. No.1431 of 2011 7. Having regard to the nature of right affected, it would be in the interest of justice that the affected party is heard before an order of resumption is passed. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE August 12, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3