- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the communications dated 23.08.1994 and 19.01.1995 declining to transfer ownership of House No.2572, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
(2.) The residential plot No.2572, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh was allotted to Lieutenant Colonel Bikram Singh on 01.06.1967. The allottee was required to construct building on the said plot within three years. A deed of conveyance was executed in favour of Lieutenant Colonel Bikram Singh on 24.10.1970. The plot was sold to Sardara Singh, husband of the petitioner prior to the year 1982.
(3.) The Estate Officer exercising the powers conferred under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), initiated proceedings for resumption of site. The Estate Officer passed an order resuming the site and forfeiting to Government a sum of Rs.1673.60 being 10% of the price of the plot. An appeal was preferred by Lieutenant Colonel Bikram Singh before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh. The site was restored subject to the condition that transferee would complete the construction on the site and obtain occupation certificate by 30.09.1979. Aggrieved against such condition, Lieutenant Colonel Bikram Singh filed a revision petition before the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The same was decided on 29.07.1982. The learned Chief Commissioner noticed that the site has been transferred to Sardara Singh after obtaining prior permission of the Estate Office during the pendency of the revision and that the Sardara Singh was allowed to continue with the revision on 29.04.1982. The learned Chief Commissioner noticed that it is admitted by the parties that Sardara Singh has completed construction of the ground floor and the plastering and flooring work is in progress. But the report of Sub Divisional Engineer (Building) is that the construction is not according to sanctioned plan. The learned Chief Commissioner also noticed the fact that the construction has been completed but if there is any violation, the Estate Officer would be at liberty to proceed against the transferee under the existing provisions of law but it will not be a ground to throw away the revision petition. The learned Chief Commissioner allowed the revision observing as under:- " . It is admitted by the parties that the new transferee of the site-Shri Sardara Singh has completed the construction of the ground floor and the plastering and flooring work is in progress. Although, the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Buildings) shows that the construction is not according to the sanctioned plan but the fact remains that the construction has been completed. It there is any violation in the construction, the Estate Officer would be at liberty to proceed against him under the existing provisions of law but this by itself seems to be no ground much less just to throw away the revision petition. If the site is allowed to be resumed, it will cause unnecessary difficulties to the new transferee of the site for obvious reasons that the Estate Officer has granted him permission for the purchase of the site. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances I am inclined to take a lenient view and thus hereby order that the transferee would complete construction within three months from the date of this order and obtain occupation certificate. The order of the Estate Office regarding forfeiture of the amount shall stand operative and the amount forfeited would also be payable to the Estate Officer within three months from the date of this order. On failure of the petitioner to comply with the above said conditions of this order, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and the orders of the Estate Officer shall become operative.";