IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18867 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.08.2009 Smt.Harbans Kaur and others Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administration and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondents ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to the resumption order dated 8.10.1983 (P1), order dated 10.12.1985(P2), vide which, appeal filed by ‘predecessor in interest’ of the petitioners was dismissed. Further challenge is to order dated 7.5.2008(P7), dismissing revision petition filed by the petitioners. Counsel for the parties heard. It is a classic case which shows that how an individual can play with law and then try to make out plea for mercy, on one pretext or the other. In this case, property, in dispute was allotted to M/s S.D.G. Industries (a partnership firm) in the year 1977. During inspection, building violations were noticed and resumption order was passed on 8.10.1983 on the ground that despite opportunities given, the owner has failed to remove the building violations. Vide order, mentioned above, Site No.114, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was resumed and 10% of the premium amount was forfeited. Amount was also ordered to be recovered towards ground rent. The owner went in appeal. By noticing that the violations still exist, rather Civil Writ Petition No.18867 of 2008 the violations have been increased, appeal was dismissed on 10.12.1985. The appellate authority has noticed that neither the violations were removed nor any application was moved for compounding those violations which were compoundable. Facts mentioned above clearly indicate that scant respect was shown to the provisions of the allotment letter and the law. Owner thereafter kept mum, did not take any action, building violations continued to exist at the spot. The managing partner Mr.Gurdev Singh died in the year 2002. Even after his death, nothing was done. Thereafter, the petitioners, who are legal representatives of Mr.Gurdev Singh, filed a revision petition after a gap of more than 21 years, which was dismissed on 17.10.2007 on the ground that it was barred by limitation and further that the violations were in existence even at that time. Thereafter, a review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 7.5.2008. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the violations could not be removed because the tenants did not allow the petitioners to do the needful. To say so, he has made reference to a suit filed by the tenants, on 8.2.2008, claiming permanent injunction against the petitioners. This Court feels that this plea was not taken when revision was filed in the year 2005, however, subsequently, when review application was filed, this plea was raised. This Court is of the opinion that the plea of premises under tenancy, was an after thought and it has been devised only with a view to show that the petitioners were not in a position to remove the building violations on account of building being in possession of the tenants. In this case, violations are existing since before 1983 and till the date of dismissal of revision petition in the year 2007, the violations continued as such, rather during the intervening period, building violations increased, as has been rightly noticed by the competent authority. This 2 Civil Writ Petition No.18867 of 2008 Court feels that to such a person, no benefit can be extended while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a case where no respect has been shown to the law, the rules and the contractual obligation. Otherwise also, after a gap of more than 25 years, it is not open to the petitioners, to say that now on account of removal of building violations, the site be restored to them. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. It is coming out from the record that when appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed in the year 1995, it was incumbent for the authorities to initiate ejectment proceedings. The authorities remained mum, did not take any action and the ejectment proceedings were initiated only in the year 2008. This also shows callous attitude of the authorities. The Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh is directed to conduct a fact finding enquiry as to why action was not taken in time. He shall also try to fix responsibility of the officers/officials concerned and take action, as per law. This trend has been seen in many other cases. Report of action taken be submitted to this Court, for record, within a period of three months. In view of order passed in the writ petition, there is no necessity to pass any order in C.M. No.13314 of 2009. 12.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3