- (1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 4.8.1997, cancelling allotment of industrial plot no. E-43, Focal Point (Old), Bathinda, order dated 13.12.2000, allowing the ejectment petition filed by respondent no.1, and order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Tehsildar, Bathinda, issuing a recovery certificate apart from ordering recovery , as arrears of land revenue.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot in dispute was allotted to Kewal Krishan on 1.1.1988, for Rs.50,000/- as a lessee for 99 years. 25% of the consideration was to be deposited within 30 days of the allotment and the balance amount could either be paid in lumpsum within 60 days or in six equated instalments along with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. After Kewal Krishan submitted a partnership deed, the Corporation approved allotment in the name of firm M/s Prestige Industries. The firm was dissolved on 28.2.1995 as Kewal Krishan and Kavita Maheshwari retired as partners and the petitioner was inducted as a partner with Pankaj Maheshwari. A copy of the dissolution deed along with a copy of the new partnership deed was forwarded to respondent no.1 vide letter dated 9.6.1995, but nothing was heard from respondent no.1. The petitioner sent a letter dated 27.1.2006 informing respondent no.1 that Pankaj Maheshwari has also retired as partner of the firm and the petitioner is sole proprietor of the firm. The petitioner wrote similar letters on 21.9.2006 and 29.9.2007, but was surprised, on 10.9.2008, when the Tehsildar, Bathinda, arrived at the premises and asked the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the industrial plot, by 5.10.2008. Upon inquiry, it has transpired that the allotment was cancelled on 4.8.1997 and an order of ejectment was passed on 13.12.2000, without serving any notice on the petitioner, though she had already informed respondent no.1, vide letter dated 9.6.1995, that she is a partner, as the firm has been reconstituted.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a perusal of the impugned order reveals that allotment has been cancelled and eviction order passed without notice to the petitioner or affording an opportunity of hearing or reference to her application dated 9.6.1995. It is further argued that as respondent no. 1 was aware that the petitioner is a partner, a notice should have been issued to the petitioner before initiating proceedings for cancellation and eviction. It is further submitted that impugned orders dated 13.12.2000 (Annexure P-9) and 19.5.2005 (Annexure P-10) clearly establish that they were passed without impleading the petitioner. It is further submitted that though the impugned order dated 4.8.1997 refers to various letters and telegrams, no such letter, notice or telegram was ever received by the petitioner.;