Judgment:
C.W.P.No.16215 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16215 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 23, 2013 Vivek Chand Mehta and others ...Petitioners Versus U.T.Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Abhay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
(Oral) A residential Plot bearing House Site No.3262, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh was initially allotted to Dr.
Faquir Chand Mehta, grandfather of the petitioners on 03.02.1954.
He constructed a two-and-half storeyed house on the said plot after approval of the building plans from the Chandigarh Administration.
Vide order dated 18.09.1987 (Annexure P9) the aforesaid house was resumed on the ground of building violations made by him, i.e., for construction of temporary shed in the rear court-yard, pucca store at Barsati floor and glazing of the verandah on the fiRs.and second floor.
Against the said order, he filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator.
During the pendency of the appeal, Dr.
Faquir Chand Mehta died on 22.07.1991.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 30.10.1992 (Annexure P10) without getting the legal representatives of the deceased allottee impleaded and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the legal Kumar Vinay 2013.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.16215 of 2012 (O&M) -2- representatives (petitioners herein).When the petitioneRs.who are the grandchildren of Dr.
Faquir Chand Mehta, moved an application for transfer of the property in their favour on the basis of the registered Will dated 19.12.1991 (Annexure P6).they came to knot that the property was resumed on the aforesaid grounds and the appeal filed by their grandfather was also dismissed after his death.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, which was dismissed on 21.05.2012 (Annexure P13) on the ground that the petitioners could not justify the delay of 17 years in filing the revision petition and it was also observed that the building violations are still existing.
The petitioners have challenged all the aforesaid orders in the present writ petition.
During the pendency of the writ petition, it was stated in the rejoinder that the petitioners have removed all the violations, including the Barsati floor of the house.
On April 26, 2013, learned counsel for the respondents sought time to verify this fact and to submit the inspection report.
On July 03, 2013, inspection report dated May 22, 2013 (Annexure R-3/1) was submitted in which it has been clearly stated that all the building violations have been demolished by the owner himself and not there is no building violation.
On the basis of the said report, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the resumption order be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents sought time to get instructions in that regard.
Today, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that there is no building violations and all the violations, which were made contrary to the building plans, have been removed.
In view of the fact that the building Kumar Vinay 2013.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.16215 of 2012 (O&M) -3- violations, which were minot in nature, have been removed and further in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Dheera Singh Versus UT Chandigarh Admn.
and otheRs.2012(4) RCR (Civil) 970, we are of the opinion that the resumption order is liable to be set aside.
The Chandigarh Administration has also framed a Draft Policy regarding transfer of immovable property to the legal-heirs/legatee after death of the allottee/transferee, and the said Policy has been approved by this Court in CWP No.1331 of 2013 decided on May 16, 2013.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.09.1987 (Annexure P9).30.10.1992 (Annexure P10) and 21.05.2012 (Annexure P13) are set aside.
As far as the prayer of the petitioners for transfer of the said property on the basis of registered Will executed by their grandfather in their favour is concerned, the Chandigarh Administration will consider the same in accordance with the guidelines framed by it, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 23, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN ) vkg JUDGE Kumar Vinay 2013.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh