A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are to different orders passed by the authorities under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, whereby site No. 98 -B, Sector 8 -C, Chandigarh (now house No. 1084) was resumed and 10 per cent of the price of the plot was ordered to be forfeited.
(2.) RESIDENTIAL site No. 98 A, Sector 8 -C, Chandigarh was allotted to Shri Chhabili Lall Mehta on free -hold basis in the year, 1952. The site measured 2 kanals of land. On the said site house was constructed and completed. After the death of Sh. Chhabili Lall Mehta, the house stands transferred in the names of his widow and children, the present Petitioners (Col. Ramesh Mehta and others) The Legal remembrancer and Director Prosecution and Litigation and Secretary to Government, Punjab took the aforesaid house on rent for his office several years ago. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, issued a show -cause notice to the Petitioners for resuming the site on the grounds of mis -use. The said show cause notice was not served upon the Petitioners. However, the Estate Officer vide his order dated May 16, 1983, and communicated on September 8, 1983 resumed the site and ordered forfeiture of 10 per cent of the premium. Annexure P -1 is the copy of the order. When the Petitioners came to know about this order, they filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated September 10, 1985, restored the site to the Petitioners on the condition that the mis -use will be stopped by March 31, 1986 (within six months) and the amount of forfeiture was to stand. It was further ordered if the mis -use of the site would continue after March 31, 1986, the order of resumption will become operative. Copy of this order is Annexure P.2. There was family settlement and the house in dispute fell to the share of Col. Ramesh Mehta -Petitioner No. 1. However, so far his name has not been entered in the record with the Estate Officer. The Petitioner No. 1 being in Army, posted at Bombay. He tried his best to get the house vacated from the Legal Remembrancer and Director Prosecution, Punjab, but he could not succeed in getting it vacated within the period allowed in the appeal aforesaid.
(3.) PROCEEDINGS under the Public Premises Act were initiated against the Legal Remembrancer and Director Prosecution. Copy of the notice dated December, 22, 1988, is Annexure P -3. Ultimately, on January 6, 1989, the house was vacated by the Legal Remembrancer. Immediately thereafter, on January 9, 1989, the Petitioners filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, Respondent No. 2, stating therein that the mis -use has been stopped and the ground on which the site was resumed is no more available; and that the site be restored. Annexure P -5 is the copy of the grounds of appeal. The appeal was listed for hearing on January, 31, 1989. The Estate Officer submitted his comments, copy of which is Annexure P. 6. The Finance Secretary, after hearing the parties allowed the same and ordered the restoration of the site. On the next day when the Petitioner went to get the copy of the order passed by the Finance Secretary, he was orally informed that Respondent No. 2 the Finance Secretary had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by the Chief Administrator. Thus, the Petitioners, as advised, filed a revision petition before the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on February 1, 1989, copy Annexure P -7. On the very day. Advisor to Administrator without getting comments from the Estate Officer, dismissed the same in limine vide copy of the order, Annexure P -8. The orders are under challenge in this writ petition.;