C.W.P. No. 5009 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5009 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 22.09.2011 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the respondents. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). Balwinder Singh claiming himself as son of Swaran Singh has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 4.2.2003 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Exercising the Powers of Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby the lease of Transit site No. 43, Phase-I, Ram Darbar, Karsan Colony, U.T. Chandigarh, was cancelled and 10% of the amount deposited by the allottees was ordered to be forfeited; as well as the order dated 3.12.2008 passed by the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, and order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Administrator whereby the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. In this case Transit Site No. 43, Phase-I, Ram Darbar, Karsan Colony, U.T. Chandigarh was allotted on lease hold basis to three persons C.W.P. No. 5009 of 2009 2 namely Swaran Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Gian Singh vide allotment letter dated 26.5.1977. As per the condition of the allotment, the licensees was not to sublet, assign or part with the possession of the transit site to anybody else. They were also required to pay the license fee regularly. In this case after the allotment the aforesaid licensees failed to make the payment of the license fee to the respondents. Then a show cause notice was issued to them. In response to that one Smt. Lajwanti appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and disclosed that she has purchased the site from the allottees. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the allottees as well as occupant. But neither the allottees nor occupant came forward to make any payment of the lease amount. Thereupon the Land Acquisition Officer Exercising the Powers of Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh cancelled the lease and forfeited the earnest money vide order dated 4.2.2003. Feeling aggrieved against the said order Lajwanti filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 21.4.2005 while observing as under :- “The undersigned has taken into consideration the submissions made by both the parties. The undersigned finds that Lajwanti is neither original allottee nor has proved her right in the tenement site no.43, Karsan Colony, Phase I, Chandigarh. As per the terms and conditions of the licence, the original licensees were not entitled to part with, sublet or assign any right in the said property in favour of any other person. This is a case where provisions of Rehabilitation Scheme have been violated. Tenement site No. 43 was allotted to Shri Swaran Singh, Nachattar Singh and Gian Singh at a nominal rent of Rs. 10/- per month. Smt. Lajwanti is C.W.P. No. 5009 of 2009 3 certainly not entitled to the allotment or transfer of the said tenement site in her favour. She was come to misuse the provisions of law to her own advantage. A violator of law cannot be allowed to derive illegal benefits against the law. The undersigned, therefore, finds no merit in the appeal and also finds that the appeal filed by Lajwanti is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.” Three years thereafter the petitioner claiming himself as LR of Swaran Singh filed appeal against the order dated 4.2.2003 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It was argued that the appellant is in occupant of the site being the legal representative and he is homeless, therefore, exparte order passed against the dead person should be set aside. The said appeal was dismissed by the Chief Administrator while making the following observation:- “The Law Officer of Estate Office argued that there was a condition in the allotment that the licensees shall not sublet, assign or part with the possession of the transit site to anybody else and there was also a condition that the licensee shall pay monthly rent regularly but the licensees neither paid the license fee regularly nor they used the said tenement for their own bonafide use. He further argued that the appeal is also badly time barred by 5 years and deserved to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, I see lot of reasons and justifications in the arguments of the counsel for the Estate Office and in view of the reasons put forward by counsel for Estate Office as mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed.” Against the said order the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator U.T., Chandigarh, while making the following observation:- C.W.P. No. 5009 of 2009 4 “After hearing the parties and going through the submissions made, I find that the transit site was allotted to the owner under the Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979. A person, aggrieved by an order passed by the Competent Authority, is entitled to file an appeal before the Chief Administrator and the order passed in appeal by the Chief Administrator, as per Scheme, shall be final. I, therefore, find that the revision is not maintainable and dismiss the same being not maintainable.” We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of Estate Officer was exparte and the said order was passed against the dead persons. When a question was asked about three allottees, the counsel replied that Nachhattar Singh and Gian Singh are very much residing in the village as far as Sarwan Singh is concerned counsel says that he is dead. But he did not place on record any proof in this regard. The petitioner is claiming the right on the property being son of Swaran Singh. It is admitted position that Swaran Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Gian Singh after the allotment did not pay any amount, therefore, notice was issued to them. But they did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter Smt. Lajwanti appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and disclosed that she purchased the site from the allottees and the Land Acquisition Officer after hearing her cancelled the said allotment on the ground of non-payment of lease amount and subletting. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he at this belated stage has no right to challenge that order. It is further held that the original allottees as per the condition in the allotment could not sublet, assign or part with the possession of the transit site to anybody else. Since three persons have C.W.P. No. 5009 of 2009 5 already sold the property to Lajwanti, therefore they have forfeited their right on two grounds i.e., firstly that they have sold the transit site and secondly they did not paid a single penny towards lease amount. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the lease in favour of allottees was rightly cancelled and the said order was upheld in appeal and revision. Thus in these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has no claim. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE . 22.9.2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) reema JUDGE