CWP No. 1279 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1279 of 2010 Date of decision January 27, 2010 Kuldip Singh ....... Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. K. Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. C. Bitta, Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing the order of resumption made on 10.5.1989 and the ultimate disposal made by the Advisor to the Administrator by his order dated 21.8.2009. The case has gone through all the tiers of adjudication in the following fashion. 2. Originally, the petitioner had been allotted with the property in plot No.72 and he had also raised some construction on the same. It appears that in the manner of allotment there had been a correction in making it appears as plot No.72 for plot No. 74. Yet another person was staking claim to the property in plot No.72 and in the resulting confusion, the petitioner claimed that he had not been able to complete the construction. The resumption order which was made by the said order dated 10.5.1989 was challenged in appeal to the Chief Administrator where a compromise was said to have been entered between the parties in the year 1992 under the terms of which the administration was purported to have executed to allot to the petitioner plot No.74 and for the construction which the petitioner claimed that he had made in plot No.72, he was compensated by the third party to whom the allotment of plot No.72 was CWP No. 1279 of 2010 2 made. The compromise was said to have been drawn up and the petitioner had also received compensation for the value of the construction which he had made in plot No.72 and the petitioner had obtained right to plot No.74. He should have put up the construction thereon within the time which was allotted under the terms of allotment. However, he did not make any construction and the petitioner claimed that he came to know even the proceedings before the Lok Adalat that resulted in a compromise did not get to be recorded by the Appellate Authority but the Authority had dismissed the appeal for default. He had moved an application for restoration and the case was indeed restored by the Appellate Authority. 3. If at that time the petitioner had still insisted that the compromise which was recorded must be given effect to and by the failure to have the compromise recorded he was under a state of confusion as to which property he was entitled to use, then it would have been possible for the Appellate Authority to secure to him what was the subject matter of compromise. However, the case was taken up on merits without reference to the compromise and the petitioner himself had participated in advancing the arguments on merits of the claim of the decision relating to resumption of property. The appeal had been dismissed on merits on 16.1.2009 and the revision filed against the said decision was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator on 21.8.2009 which is assailed along with the previous orders in this writ petition. 4. Again, if the petitioner's contention were to be that by virtue of compromise he was under the impression that plot No.74 had been allotted to him, he should have put up the construction within the stipulated period at least from the date when the compromise was entered in the year 1992 but that was not done If it were to be taken, on the other hand, that the compromise did not take effect then the fact that the construction was not made and completed within the stipulated period in CWP No. 1279 of 2010 3 plot No.72 itself provided the justification for resumption which was made on 10.5.1989. But either way, the petitioner cannot challenge the action for resumption without proving the reasons as to why he did not not put up construction within the stipulated period under the terms of allotment . The Appellate and the Revisional Authority have noted that the allotment had been made on 11.6.1987 and even after expiry of 22 years no construction had been made. Violation of terms of conditions for such a length of time is not satisfactorily explained and the resumption order passed by the Advisor to the Administrator as stood confirmed by the two higher authorities, is perfectly justified. There is no scope for intervention in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2010 archana