Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Behari Lal challenging the orders dated 30th of August, 1963 and 28th of November, 1963, passed by the Estate Officer, Capital Project, Chandigarh, Respondent No. 1 and the Chief Administrator, Capital Project, respectively, resuming the site purchased by the Petitioner and further forfeiting 20 per cent of the money paid in respect thereof.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the Petitioner, he started the shop of a Halwai for making and selling sweet meats and tea, etc., at Bajwara in 1952, when the construction of the Capital at Chandigarh had commenced. He was carrying on that business in Bajwara in a shop which he had constructed on Government land. He continued selling sweet meats, etc., up to 1959. During that period, he was paying rent for the land, on which he had built the shop, to Respondent No. 1, at the rate of Rs. 6 per mensem. In 1953, Respondent No. 1 offered to sell sites for booths in the grain market to the lessees of sites at Bajwara, because the Government wanted to remove all the buildings from the Bajwara area. The Petitioner accepted the offer of Respondent No. 1 and applied for the purchase of a commercial plot for building a booth, so that he could shift his business as a Halwai from Bajwara to the grain market. The Petitioner then purchased a commercial plot No. 6, C.P. No. 520 for a booth in the grain market for Rs. 1,865 on 19th August, 1953 He, however, did not build the booth for sometime. Later on, a conveyance deed was also executed in October, 1958 and according to condition No. 8 mentioned in the said deed, the Petitioner was to use the plot for a commercial purpose in accordance with the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the 1952 Rules), made under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Subsequently, with the permission of Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner built a booth on the site that he had purchased, for running the shop of a Halwai, because he had to shift his business from Bajwara to the grain market, as desired by Respondent No. 1. The construction made by the Petitioner included a chimney for the outlet of the smoke from the Bhatti. The Petitioner also got a water connection, since he needed water in the shop. He also got a sewerage connection for the flow of water from the shop to the underground sewerage line. Some defects were found in the said building by the officials of the Estate Office vide their memorandum dated 12th of December, 1960 and they were removed by the Petitioner and ultimately the building was approved by Respondent No. 1, vide his memorandum dated 15th January, 1961. On 30th of August, 1963, by means of the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 resumed the site in question and forfeited 20 per cent of the money paid in respect thereof, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 9 of the Act, because according to him, the building was found to be used by the Petitioner as a tea stall in breach of Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, and the Petitioner had failed to rectify the said defect in spite of a notice having been issued to him in that behalf. Against this, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Capital Project, Chandigarh, under Section 10(1) of the Act. The same was disposed of by the said officer by means of the impugned order dated 8th November, 1963, the operative part of which runs as under: Since the booth erected on the Appellant's site is actually meant for general trades only, I do not see any reason to permit the Appellant to run Halwai Business or Tea Stall therein. In the circumstances of the case I would accept this appeal subject to the condition that the misuse of the booth is actually stopped within a period of 21 days from the date of issue of this order. In the event of the Appellant's failure to comply with this condition, the appeal shall stand rejected in. toto and the order of the Estate Officer, appealed against, shall remain operative. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 17th February, 1963. In the return filed by Respondent No. 1, it was stated that with a view to develop the grain market, applications for the allotment of different categories of sites at fixed prices were invited from the intending purchasers. The allotment was not confined to the lessees of Bajwara, although they were given preference. The Petitioner also applied for the allotment of a booth and was allotted one at a fixed price of Rs. 1,865. The booth site was meant for general trade. Its use for any trade involving the use of fire, such as tandoor, restaurant, Halwai, etc., was strictly prohibited. In the application for allotment, it was conceded, the Petitioner had given his profession as a Halwai, but he did not object to the allotment of a booth for general trade. The booth site was sold to the Petitioner on 19th August, 1955. It was denied that any permission for the use of booth as a Halwai had been obtained by the Petitioner. He was transferred the site in question vide allotment letter dated 19th August, 1952. Therein, Clause 17 read as under: The booths shall not be used for any purpose requiring the use of fire such as Tandoor, Restaurant, Halwais shop nor as a workshop or for manufacture or sale of furniture or cycle repair shop. The Petitioner accepted the allotment subject to this clause. There was no provision of chimney in the sanctioned plan of the building. The sanction for water as well as sewerage connection had not been issued by the Estate Officer and both of them were unauthorised. It was admitted that the site in question was sold under the 1952 Rules. It was denied that the booth in question was to be used as a Halwai shop.
(3.) IT would be apparent from the impugned order dated 30th of August, 1963 that Respondent No. 1, had resumed the site by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 9 of the Act. He had done so, because the Petitioner was found to be using the commercial site, which was transferred to him, as a tea stall in breach of Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, and he had failed to remove that defect in spite of the notice having been issued to him in that connection. Section 9 of the Act reads as under: In the case of non -payment of consideration money or any instalment thereof on account of the transfer of any site or building under Section 3 or any rent due in respect of the lease of any such site or building or in case of the breach of any other conditions of such transfer or breach of any rules made under this Act, the Estate Officer may if he thinks fit. resume the site or building so transferred and may further forfeit the whole of any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof.;