- (1.) By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of lease of SCO Site No.271, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh dated 6.8.1990 passed by Assistant Estate Officer exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh and order dated 7.3.1995 passed, in appeal, by Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, whereby while restoring the site to the owner, forfeiture of 5% of the total premium has been directed to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 8.3.1998 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh, whereby the revision petition, filed by the petitioner against the order of resumption for failing to comply with the Chief Administrator's order, has been dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased SCO Site No.271, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh on lease hold basis. After making payment of 25% of the premium of the site, the lease was confirmed in favour of the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 30.9.1974. The petitioner paid the up-todate premium including the ground rent and interest and has constructed the building on the site. The site was allotted for general trade. The petitioner is stated to be running a cloth business on the ground floor, whereas back portion, first and second floor were rented out. It is stated that the occupier of the back portion is running the business of Auto Spare Parts in the name and style of M/s Joga Auto Repair Centre and the back portion of the SCO has a big shutter opening on the back road and thereafter, there is an open land of the Chandigarh Administration between the road and the boundary wall of the school. A number of auto repairers are running the business of auto repair on the Government land. However, the Estate Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding the use of said portion of the building for running auto repair centre under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Rules") and vide order dated 5.10.1990, cancelled the lease of the Site No.271, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. Against the aforesaid order dated 5.10.1990, the petitioner as well as the tenant Joga Singh filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 22 of the 1973 Rules, whereupon, vide order dated 7.3.1995 on the undertaking of counsel for the appellant to remove misuse by 31.5.1995, the order dated 5.8.1990 was set aside and the site was restored to the owner subject to the conditions to remove misuse by 31.5.1995. The forfeiture of the premium was worked out to Rs.2600/- to be paid by the petitioner by 10.4.1995, failing which, the order dated 5.8.1990 passed by the Estate Officer shall become operative.
(3.) Pursuant to order dated 7.3.1995 passed by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, petitioner prepared pay order of Rs.2600/- and submitted the same to the Estate Officer. However, the same was returned by the Estate Officer, requiring the same to be returned after revalidation, along with copy of the restoration order passed by the Chief Administrator. The petitioner submitted the revalidated demand draft vide letter dated 26.11.1997. However, the demand draft, as submitted by the petitioner, was returned by the Estate Officer, respondent no.3, vide letter dated 4.11.1997(Annexure P-6) on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the order of the Chief Administrator. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 4.11.1997, the petitioner submitted compliance of the order of the Chief Administrator on 2.12.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 10 of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 22 of the 1973 Rules against memo. dated 4.11.1997, whereby the demand draft of Rs.2600/- was returned to him on the ground that he has failed to comply with the Chief Administrator's order. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 7.3.1995 passed by the Chief Administrator. While the revision petition was pending before the Advisor to the Administrator, the site was ordered to be inspected in the presence of the petitioner. On the date and time when the site was inspected, it was found that the repair work was being carried out by Shri Joga Singh, tenant, in the back portion of the shop. Again, an inspection was carried out on 18.2.1998 at about 5-00 pm and at the time of inspection, it was noticed that the tenant was repairing the vehicles in front of the Government land adjoining the school boundary wall. Ultimately, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 8.3.1998.;