- (1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Petitions No. 4935, 4143, 4225, 4226, 887-A, 4889 and 5757 of 1975. The facts of all the writ petitions are substantially the same, though the petitioners are different.
(2.) In Civil Writ No. 4935 of 1975 the facts are like these. The petitioner B.L. Batra is the transferee of shop-cum-office site No. 101, 102 and 103, in Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. He got a plan sanctioned for construction of a building thereon. The authorities found that the petitioner had made the following unauthorised material additions and alterations in the building constructed by him against the sanctioned plan and had thus committed breach of rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952, (hereinafter the Rules) :- (i) Mezzanine floor has been fully covered partly with slabs and partly with paragola. (ii) Small booths have been constructed instead of show windows in the corner of the building. (iii) Steel glazing instead of undultstory glazing on the mezzanine and first floor. (iv) Illegal sewerage has been made. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the breach committed by him. He was afforded an opportunity to remove the said additions and alterations which was not done. The site was ordered to be resumed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration vide order dated May 15, 1971. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Chief Administrator remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing him. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Estate Officer of July 9, 1971. The petitioner did not appear before the Estate Officer on that date and the latter again ordered resumption of the site and forfeiture of the money paid by him vide order dated July 9, 1971, (P.1). The petitioner's appeal against the order (P.1) was decided by the Chief Administrator on July 10, 1973, (copy P.2). The appellate authority modified the order of the Estate Officer to the extent that the petitioner was allowed the restoration of the property in case he deposited within a period of three months Rs. 11,500/- by way of forfeiture and demolished and unauthorised construction to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer or within the same period deposited Rs. 14,1,667/- as capitalised value for the unauthorised additions and alterations. The Estate Officer was directed to proceed separately against the petitioner regarding the construction of small booths instead of show windows in the corner of the shop (building) and for illegal sewerage connection. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed a revision and the same was disposed of by the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, vide order dated August 17, 1974, (copy P.4). The Chief Commissioner reduced the capitalised value from Rs. 1,41,667/- to Rs. 75,240/. The operative part of the order of the Chief Commissioner reads :- "The impugned order dated July 10, 1973, of the Chief Administrator is, therefore, modified as under :- The site in question is resumed and 10 per cent of the amount paid in respect of transfer forfeited under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, provided that if the petitioner within four months from the date of this order complies with the undermentioned conditions, there shall be no resumption and forfeiture :- (i) deposits Rs. 75,240/- on account of compensation for the additional coverage by mezzanine floor or demolishes the coverage built in excess of the sanctioned plan, (ii) provides suitable number of exhaust fans, as permanent fixtures, in the mezzanine floor to ensure air circulation to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer and simultaneously submits proposals for air conditioning such floors which require this treatment under the bye-laws, (iii) deposits necessary charges in respect of sewerage connection in terms of the letter part of rule 112, and (iv) removes other deviations if any mentioned in the order of the Estate Officer dated July 9, 1971, so as to bring the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Before parting with this case I would like to add that this decision is being made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it should not be taken as a precedent either for deciding the question of resumption or of the amount of compensation." The petitioner then filed a review petition before the Chief Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated February 21, 1975 (P.13), on the ground that it was not maintainable.
(3.) The petitioner B.L. Batra has consequently filed Civil Writ No. 4935 of 1975 challenging the orders passed by the Union Territory authorities on various grounds being unconstitutional, illegal and bad. The petitioners in the remaining writ petitions also made unauthorised additions and alterations against the sanctioned plans in their buildings constructed by them in Section 17 and thus committed similar breach of rule 5 of the Rules. The Union Territory authorities resumed their sites and agree to restore the same to them on their paying capitalised value of the unauthorised construction. They have challenged these orders in their respective writ petitions.;