Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 687 (PNJ)

Col. Harinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration

2012-05-08

A.N.JINDAL, HEMANT GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - C.M. No. 6971 of 2011 After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant wishes to withdraw the present application. Dismissed as withdrawn. CWP No. 2238 of 2011 The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 7.1.1971 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Estate Officer; orders dated 18.8.1972 (Annexure P-5) and 28.9.1973 (Annexure P-6) passed by the then Chief Commissioner and the order dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Adviser to Administrator in the review petition in respect of resumption of the property of the petitioner. 2. One Harkishan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was allotted residential plot No. 7, Street A, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh now House No. 16, Sector 10, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 29.7.1954. The plot was resumed vide order dated 7.1.1971 and forfeited 10% of money paid for the plot. The building was resumed as the allottee has failed to raise construction of the building within the extended period. In appeal, the allottee was permitted to complete construction vide order dated 9.3.1971 (Annexure P-3) on the plot by 31.12.1971 and the forfeiture amount was reduced to Rs. 100/- only. It was on 21.8.1971, the Estate Officer recommended that the house may be connected with the main sewer on an application of the allottee that the building is complete. The allottee was not granted occupation certificate which led the allottee to avail the remedy of revision before the then Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. Learned Chief Commissioner found on the basis of report of the building inspector that the building is complete upto the first floor in all respects, but the construction is not according to the sanctioned plan. The Allottee was permitted to seek the modifications, regularized by the submission of a revised plan. The Chief Commissioner allowed the further extension of time subject to payment of penalty of Rs. 100/-. The site was ordered to be restored on the condition that the petitioner will get revised plan approved and also obtain the occupation certificate by 31.12.1972. The forfeiture ordered by the Chief Administrator was maintained. 3. The allottee filed review petition to seek extension of time which was allowed by the Chief Commissioner on September 27, 1973 (Annexure P-6) subject to the condition that the allottee either removes deviations from the plan or gets them regularized through a revised plan and obtains an occupation certificate by 31.3.1974. 4. 3. The allottee filed review petition to seek extension of time which was allowed by the Chief Commissioner on September 27, 1973 (Annexure P-6) subject to the condition that the allottee either removes deviations from the plan or gets them regularized through a revised plan and obtains an occupation certificate by 31.3.1974. 4. It is pointed out by the petitioner that on 30.3.1974, the allottee completed the construction as per revised plan. The allottee also furnished Form ‘D’ and ‘F’ of the Rules 17 and 18 of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Building Rules, 1952 duly signed by an Architect. It appears that the occupation certificate was declined vide communication dated 24.12.1975 vide communication addressed to an Architect of the Administration that - “Size of Window at G.R. has been increased. You are requested to set it right or apply for compounding.” The allottee made another request for issuing of occupation certificate on 20.4.1978 (Annexure P-9). 5. The allottee Harkishan Singh died on 9.3.2007. His son, the present petitioner, applied for transfer of the property on the basis of Will dated 27.3.2001. It was in response to the said communication, the petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-19 dated 7.12.2010 that the property stands resumed and that the same be got restored from the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, petitioner filed another review petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh successor office of the Chief Commissioner for review of order. The said revision has been dismissed on 1.12.2010 for the reason that the petitioner has slept over the matter for more than 36 years and as such they are not entitled to any relief. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the only violation noticed by the building branch and communicated to the Architect of the Administration is about size of window on the ground floor. It is contended that such communication was not addressed to the allottee, therefore, the said fact has not been come to the notice of allottee. In the year 1978, the allottee has sought the occupation certificate but since the allottee was already granted sewerage connection, the allottee never felt to insist upon occupation certificate. It is also pointed out that vide communication dated 30.03.1974 (Annexure P-7), the allottee has communicated that minor changes be ignored or compounded. In the year 1978, the allottee has sought the occupation certificate but since the allottee was already granted sewerage connection, the allottee never felt to insist upon occupation certificate. It is also pointed out that vide communication dated 30.03.1974 (Annexure P-7), the allottee has communicated that minor changes be ignored or compounded. Therefore, in the absence of any communication to deny seek composition for the minor variation in the size of window the building can not be deemed to be resumed. Such reason could not be made ground for rejection of transfer of title for the reason that the plot stands resumed. Mr. Bali has further pointed out that construction of over size window was earlier compoundable that now such size of window is permissible under the amended Building Rules. Therefore, the ground of resumption i.e. over size window does not subsists and the same should be set aside to enable the Administration to transfer the title rights in favour of the petitioner. 7. The fact remains that after communication dated 30.3.1974 (Annexure P-7), the allottee has not been informed by the Administration of any continuing violations or that the request for compounding the violations has been rejected. The only communication on record is Annexure P-8 dated 24.12.1975. It is also addressed to an Architect of Department of Architecture, Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, once the allottee has informed the Administration within time granted that he has completed the construction as per the revised plan and that the minor changes be either ignored or compounded, the inference that the building stands resumed is not justified. Still further the only objection was regarding over size window. It is mentioned in Annexure P-8 itself that the same is compoundable as per the regulations. The same is within permissible limits as per amended regulations, the fact not disputed by Mr. Kaushal. 8. We are unable to hold that the building continues to be resumed after the year 1974. Therefore, communication dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P-18) is set aside. The Administration is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for transfer of ownership in accordance with law expeditiously.