IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13751 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.09.2009 Pawan Kumar and others Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Ram Saran Dass, Advocate for the petitioners ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) An industrial site No.67 in Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh was allotted to one Mange Ram alias Mangal Sarup to run an industry from that site. However, he rented out the same to the petitioners and other tenants. On getting report from the field staff that the premises was being used for purpose, other than industrial, show cause notice was sent to the petitioners and finding the reply unsatisfactory, resumption order was passed on 28.9.2000. Petitioners’ appeal was dismissed on 9.10.2002. Their revision also met the same fate on 13.8.2003. The petitioners came to this Court by filing CWP No.17143 of 2003, which, along with many other similar writ petitions, was disposed of, by observing as under:- “Keeping in view the overall interest of all the parties concerned, we are of the opinion that the matter can be remanded back to the highest authority, as a one time measure, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. Since Civil Writ Petition No.13751 of 2009 we are remanding the matter back to enable the highest authority to review all the cases, it would not be necessary to set aside the impugned orders. In case, the review applications of individual petitioners are accepted, undoubtedly, the impugned orders would be set aside by the highest authority. In case, the review application is dismissed in a particular matter, naturally, the impugned order will be maintained. It has been, however, pointed out by Mr.Ram Saran Dass, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are pending on the basis of the orders of resumption. The petitioners are at liberty to move an application for stay of the aforesaid proceedings by bringing to the notice of the Court of competent jurisdiction the orders passed by us today. With the above observations, the matter is remanded back to the highest authority. Let the exercise of review be completed within a period of three months.” In response to the order passed by this Court, the matter was taken up by Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, who, vide order dated 22.12.2005, set aside the resumption order, subject to a condition that the petitioners shall get the mis-user regularized in accordance with the conversion policy of the Administration, within six months from the date of passing that order, failing which, it was directed that the order passed by the Estate Officer shall become operative. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.12.2005 reads as under:- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13751 of 2009 “After hearing the parties and keeping in view the undertaking given by the petitioner, I hereby set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the owner subject to the condition that the petitioners will legitimize the misuse in accordance with the conversion policy of the Chandigarh Administration within six months from today, failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative.” Record reveals that before passing of the order, mentioned above, the proceedings were pending before the competent officer, for ejectment of the petitioners from the site, in dispute. The petitioners, after getting the above said order passed, started delaying the process by writing letters to the respondents, wherein it was stated that they be intimated as to what was the mis-user committed by them, so that they can move an application for getting the same regularised. Such like action was not justified because in the resumption order, passed against the petitioners, it was mentioned that the petitioners were using the premises for the purposes other than the industrial. When the petitioners failed to get the same rectified and remove the misuser, the Collector proceeded further with proceedings for ejectment, which were ordered on 12.1.2004. They went in appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2009, by observing as under:- “13. It is also admitted that accordingly, the Advisor restored the revision and vide order dated 22.12.2005 passed a condition order of restoration of the site to the owner subject to the condition that the appellants will legitimize the misuse in accordance with conversion policy of Chandigarh Administration within six months from today, otherwise, the 3 Civil Writ Petition No.13751 of 2009 order of Estate Officer dated 28.9.2000 shall become operative. Not even this, a further application was filed by the appellants for extension of time for the compliance of the order dated 22.12.2005 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2006. From this application, it is proved that the appellant have failed to comply with the directions given by the Advisor in the order dated 22.12.2005 by legalizing the misuse in accordance with conversion policy, within six months as it is admitted that by 26.7.2006 no permission for conversion or no report of removal of misuse was done. If it is so, the order of resumption stands restored automatically and as such, the plea of learned counsel for the appellants that order of resumption has been set-aside, is a totally misconceived and baseless plea. On the contrary, the record further shows that when the application for extension was filed a report was made by the Estate Officer that no violation has been removed or legalized and the last inspection report in this regard is dated 27.10.2008, which shows that all the violations as were made and existing at the time of passing of an order of resumption in the year 2000 are still existing and as such, there is no question of setting aside of the resumption order, as the condition precedent for that has not been fulfilled by the appellants. On the contrary the misuse of the site is still continue. Thus the appellants have no case whatsoever as per as the legality of the resumption court is concerned and this court has come to this conclusion despite the fact that it has no jurisdiction to go into this aspect, specially when no further 4 Civil Writ Petition No.13751 of 2009 appeal or revision was filed against the order dated 22.12.2005. Resultantly, it is clear that the only question remains is to whether the order of ejectment has been passed by the due process of law. 14. Accordingly, a perusal of lower court record shows that it is admitted case of the appellants that after filing of the ejectment proceedings before respondent no.1 Estate Officer a notice as per provision of Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was served upon the appellant and they also appeared before respondent No.1 and put forward a plea of pendency of appeal against the order of resumption. Not even this, respondent No.1 stayed the proceedings till the finalizing of the resumption order and ultimately no favourable order was passed against the appellants and when the appellants failed to show cause against the ejectment the impugned order of ejectment was passed on 12.1.2004 as per the due process of law and there is no illegality whatsoever in this order either factually or legally as the opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to put forward their case, was granted to the appellants before passing the impugned order.” This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that in view of notification issued by the U.T. Administration in the month of April 2006, it was not necessary for the petitioners to remove the mis-user from the site in question, is liable to be rejected. Record reveals that vide notification, mentioned above, conversion of land use of the industrial sites was permitted. Clause 20 was added in 2006 Scheme, which reads thus:- 5 Civil Writ Petition No.13751 of 2009 “On the pattern of liberalization of trade in the city shifting from one kind of manufacturing activity to any other manufacturing activity is allowed subject to observance of provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, if applicable, and norms of the Chandigarh Pollution control Committee. The change in trade (manufacturing activity) is allowed without conversion charges.” Counsel for the petitioners has failed to show that even under this provision, the petitioners have ever moved any application to get the mis-user rectified or to get the change of land approved by the Administration. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 04.09.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 6