Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 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.
(3.) 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 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.";