C.W.P. No.1455 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1455 of 1989 Date of Decision.03.05.2010 Harjeet Singh Jawanda and others ........Petitioners Versus The Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for the U.T., Chandigarh. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of resumption issued in respect of site No.30P(new No.49), Sector 28-A, Chandigarh on the ground that the construction, which was required to be made before a stipulated time as per the terms of allotment had not been so constructed and hence after notice, the property was ordered to be resumed. The original allottee namely the 1st petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Chief Administrator who by his order dated 29.04.1980 extended the period for construction by one year and also imposed on the 1st petitioner costs. It appears that the 1st petitioner did not abide by time and he wanted to transfer the property to the 2nd petitioner and sought for permission for such C.W.P. No.1455 of 1989 -2- transfer to enable the successor to put up the construction and complete the same. The permission for transfer was refused on 03.10.1989 but the 1st petitioner persisted and brought about a sale on 29.10.1980. The Advisor to the Administrator before whom the revision was pending referred to the fact that the construction had been completed upto the first floor without submitting any plan and on further finding that the construction had not completed and completion certificate had not been obtained within the stipulated time, directed the resumption and found that there was no justification for recalling the order already passed. These orders passed in succession by the authorities are the subject of challenge in the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the 2nd petitioner had obtained a sale in spite of a refusal of permission, he had joined along with the 1st petitioner to seek for a prayer that the resumption shall be made in favour of the 1st petitioner and the same be transferred in the name of the 2nd petitioner. 2. The 2nd petitioner also appears to have died and the legal representatives are brought on record. The writ petition has been admitted and an order of stay has been issued in September, 1990 permitting the 2nd petitioner to continue in possession. At this length of time, the only point that would fall for consideration would be whether it would be possible to regularize the occupation which the petitioner has obtained through the interim order. In this case, the 1st petitioner has asked for the cancellation of the order of resumption insofar so as to ultimately avail the benefit to the 2nd petitioner and his legal representatives. It is brought out on record C.W.P. No.1455 of 1989 -3- that the first floor has been constructed without submitting a building plan and it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration that even a sewerage connection had been obtained without recourse to the Chandigarh Administration by the private initiative of the 2nd petitioner. The validation of sale would also require to be done having regard to the fact that the permission, which the petitioner has sought for transfer to the 2nd petitioner was refused and there is no challenge for the same in this writ petition. It may not be possible for a mandamus to be issued for a transfer to 2nd petitioner so long as the order seeking for transfer itself was refused and that was not put in challenge before the writ petition. 3. The petitioners shall continue in possession and the impugned orders shall be set aside with the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall seek for compounding of the deviations made by putting up constructions without building plans and pay such charges as admissible under the Regulations. (ii) Sewerage connection has also to be specifically authorized in view of the objections taken by the Administration that it was done without reference to the Administration. For this also if there are any charges, the petitioner shall bear the same. 4. The sale which was made by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner even when there were orders of resumption against the 1st petitioner would require to be approved and the 2nd C.W.P. No.1455 of 1989 -4- petitioner's legal representatives shall be at liberty to make an application for validation of the sale and the same shall be considered in the light of permission granted to the petitioners to retain their possession and the decision shall be taken by the competent authority on demand of such charges as are admissible under the Rules. If any of the conditions, which are to be fulfilled, are not complied with within the time that the Administration may specify, the said action for recovery of possession or annulment of allotment may be taken by the Administration in the manner provided by the Regulations. Any application that may become necessary shall be made by the legal representatives of the 2nd petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and appropriate orders will be passed by the competent authority within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of application of the petitioners. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 03, 2010 Pankaj*