Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) HARBHAJAN Singh Bhatia had purchased a plot of land bearing No. 556, Sector 22 -B, Chandigarh, from the Government through the Estate Officer and paid the full price thereof. He had taken possession of the plot and by agreement, dated 5th September, 1961, agreed to transfer the same in favour of Gian Singh, Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The Petitioner paid the full price of Rs. 1,500 to Harbhajan Singh along with the agreement of sale. Harbhajan Singh gave an affidavit duly executed by him to the Petitioner. He also handed over possession of the plot to the Petitioner. The Petitioner went away to Bangalore for training in the Hindustan Machine Tools Factory and before he left Chandigarh, he authorised his mother Smt. Gurbachan Kaur to get the plot duly transferred in his name in the Estate Office. Smt. Gurbachan Kaur made an application in her own name and as her affidavit and the affidavit of Harbhajan Singh were not in order, the transfer was not made in her favour.
(2.) ON 30th January, 1964, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Estate Officer, Capital Project, Chandigarh, stating the above facts and requesting the transfer of the plot in his favour. The Estate Officer without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner rejected the transfer application on the ground that the last date for the transfer of plots allotted in the year 1952 -53 was 31st March 1962 which had expired. He was further informed that according to Government policy the transfer in such cases is not allowed till construction of the building on the plot is completed and occupation certificate is obtained from the Estate Office and deed of conveyance is also duly -executed. That letter was issued to the Petitioner on 3rd March, 1964 and was received by him on the following day. The Petitioner filed an appeal against that order to the Chief Administrator, Capital Project, Chandigarh, on 30th March, 1964 through his counsel Shri Kidar Nath Tewari, Advocate. The Chief Administrator did not afford any hearing to the Petitioner and the Estate Officer, Capital Project, sent to him memorandum No. 8250/RP/4635, dated 28th August, 1964, reading as under: The representation of Shri Gian Singh for the transfer of plot No. 556, Sector 22 -B, in his favour, has been considered by the Government and rejected. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition asking for the quashing of the orders of Respondents 2 and 3, dated 25th February, 1964 and 25th August, 1964 and for a direction to the Respondents to transfer the plot in his favour. The return has been filed by Shri H. L. Gugnani, Estate Officer, Chandigarh, in which it has been pleaded that the application originally made by the Petitioner's mother along with her affidavit and the affidavit of Harbhajan Singh was not in order and there was no affidavit from the Petitioner undertaking all liabilities of the said plot. In view of this defect the request for transfer was considered and rejected, - -vide letter No. 40118/RP -4635, dated 12th October, 1961. It is admitted that the application of the Petitioner, dated 31st January, 1964 was rejected by letter, dated 3rd March, 1964. It is then stated that no appeal lay against that order and his appeal to the Chief Administrator was considered as a representation.
(3.) THE plots in Chandigarh were sold under the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 27 of 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the Rules), framed under that Act. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Estate Officer to resume the site or building so transferred under the Act and to forfeit the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof on the happening of any of the eventualities mentioned in that section but it does not authorise the Estate Officer to refuse to register the transfer of a plot which has been duly transferred. Under Section 10 an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer passed under Sections 8 and 9 has been provided for to the Chief Administrator and under Sub -section (3) a revision lies to the Chief Administrator from any order passed by the Estate Officer under the Act. Rules 16 and 17 of the rules provide for the manner in which the revision is to be filed to the Chief Administrator. In case the order passed by the Estate Officer was not authorised by any of the provisions of the Act or the rules, the order is bad and without jurisdiction and has to be ignored. In case that order is authorised by any provision of the Act or the rules, then the appeal to the Chief Administrator was competent and had to be decided in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Estate Officer was also bound to observe the principles of natural justice while rejecting the application of the Petitioner for transfer of the plot as he was acting in a quasi -judicial capacity. His order was to affect the rights of the Petitioner in the plot. Similarly, the Chief Administrator had to decide the appeal as a quasi -judicial tribunal after hearing the Petitioner and after passing a speaking order. The orders of the Estate Officer and the Chief Administrator passed an 25th February, 1964 and 25th August, 1964 which were conveyed to the Petitioner on 3rd March, 1964 and 28th August, 1964, respectively, are liable to be quashed on that ground.;