- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of resumption dated 28.10.1997 (Annexure P-1) in respect of House No. 1544, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 22.12.1998 (Annexure P-9), whereby appeal against the order dated 28.10.1997 was dismissed as well as order dated 15.9.1999 (Annexure P-11), whereby the revision petition against the order dated 22.12.1998 was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that House No. 1544, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh was originally allotted to one Shri Daya Ram and after his death, the house was transferred in the name of Smt. Usha Makhan vide letter dated 1.5.1997 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner namely Dr. Jotinder Kaur is stated to have purchased the house in question from Smt. Usha Makhan vide sale deed dated 6.11.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner made a request for transfer of the said house in her name vide letter dated 13.11.1995 (Annexure P-5) and in pursuance of which, the said house was transferred in her name vide communication dated 8.12.1995. However, the owner/transferee of the aforesaid house permitted the aforesaid house for running the guest house in breach of the conditions of sale. For such violations, the respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings for resumption of the site in question. It was stated that the said misuse was detected during the general survey conducted in the month of December, 1996 by the department. Accordingly, notice under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, "the Act") was issued to the owner/occupier of the house in question. However, when nobody appeared and contested the case, an ex-parte order dated 28.10.1997 was passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the house in question was ordered to be resumed and forfeiture of 10% of the total premium of the plot was also ordered.
(2.) The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of resumption dated 28.10.1997 raising various pleas. It was pleaded that the petitioner being a lawful registered owner of the house in dispute, was not served with any notice and rather, the notice was issued to some other person who was not the owner of the property. Thus, no valid notice was issued to the petitioner. She also pleaded that the alleged misuse by the previous tenant was not in her knowledge when the house in question was purchased by her. It was further stated that even if there was any misuse, the same was discontinued because the tenant under the previous owner had vacated the house in the first week of November, 1997. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and recorded a finding that the misuse, on the basis of which the site was resumed, is still continuing. The order dated 22.12.1998, passed in appeal, was further challenged before respondent No. 1 by filing a revision petition, as provided under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner raised the similar pleas before the revisional authority to the effect that there is no misuse in the premises and misuse, if any, stands removed. She disputed the correctness of the inspection report, but the representative of the Estate Officer intervened and stated that the site in question was inspected only a day before and misuse was found in the premises. Even during the course of hearing, respondent No. 1 ordered inspection of the site and the SDO (B) inspected the site and reported that the misuse is still continuing in premises. In this manner, even the revision petition was dismissed.
(3.) In this manner, the petitioner has challenged the order of resumption dated 28.10.1997 (Annexure P-1), order dated 22.12.1998 (Annexure P-9), passed in appeal and order dated 15.9.1999 (Annexure P-11), passed in revision, through the instant writ petition.;