- (1.) Through the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 12.08.2009 Annexure P.2 passed by respondent No.3 resuming the site in question i.e. Booth No. 287, Sector-20 D, Chandigarh; order dated 09.02.2010 Annexure P.3 passed by respondent No.2, dismissing the appeal filed by their predecessor-in-interest late Sh. Shiv Prashad and order dated 26.07.2016 Annexure P.6 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the revision petition.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely late Sh. Shiv Prashad was allotted the site in question on lease hold basis for a period of 99 years by the Chandigarh Administration vide allotment letter dated 26.12.1996, Annexure P.1. The allotment was made under the "Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis of Chandigarh Rules, 1991". The predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners paid all the dues to the Administration as per the allotment letter. The allotment was to be governed by the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (in short "the Act") and also the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (in short "the Rules"). After taking possession of the site in question, the allottee started his business of Ladies Readymade Garments in the name and style of "Diana Boutique". Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2007 under Rule 20 of the Rules read with condition No.9 of the allotment letter dated 26.12.1996 was issued to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on the ground that he had sublet the booth to one Sh. Mohan son of Sh. Janeshwar who was running the business of Boutique. According to the petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest had not received any such notice from the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh. However, he came to know about the initiation of such proceedings from some officials of the Estate Office. Since he was not keeping good health and was unable to travel, he authorized one Sh. Sunil Chadha to appear and bring true facts to the knowledge of respondent No.3. Sh. Sunil Chadha appeared and brought the factual position to the notice of respondent No.3. He was told that a fresh inspection will take place. No officials from the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh inspected the site in question. On 18.11.2009, some officials of the Estate Office, Chandigarh visited the site and informed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that the site in question had been cancelled by the Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.08.2009, Annexure P.2 on account of subletting. The predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners came to known about the order dated 12.08.2009 only on 18.11.2009 through the officials of the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh. Immediately thereafter, he approached the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh to enquire about the actual position. He came to know that the booth had been cancelled by respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 12.08.2009 on account of subletting. Aggrieved by the order, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an appeal against the order dated 12.08.2009 before the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh i.e. respondent No.2 on 23.11.2009, pleading that he being an old person could not sit in the shop for the whole day and, therefore, he had engaged the services of workers for doing the business of graments and had not sublet the booth to anyone. Vide order dated 09.02.2010, Annexure P.3 respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 12.08.2009. On 22.04.2010, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Sh. Shiv Prashad expired and the present petitioners being his legal heirs stepped into his shoes. Not satisfied with the order dated 09.02.2010, Annexure P.3, the petitioners filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 i.e. Advisor to Administrator, UT, Chandigarh on 17.01.2011 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, officials of the Estate Office, Chandigarh again visited the site in question and told the petitioners that eviction order had been passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (East), Chandigarh on 23.10.2009. The petitioners were shocked to know about this fact since no notice was ever received by them. The petitioners immediately filed an appeal before the District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Chandigarh on 17.01.2011 and prayed for setting aside the order dated 23.10.2009. Vide order dated 26.07.2016, Annexure P.6, respondent No.1 dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioners on the ground of delay. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.;