Judgment:
-1- CWP No.2685 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2685 of 2014 Date of decision: 30.06.2014 Mohan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.
Present: - Mr.K.S.Khehar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate and Ms.Nimrata Shergill, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
(ORAL) Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by Estate Officer, Chandigarh, order dated 02.09.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Chandigarh and order dated 25.11.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by District Judge, Chandigarh (Appellate Authority) whereby the petitioner has been evicted and 25% forfeiture amount has been imposed on him.
It is pertinent to mention that due to non-execution of lease deed, respondent No.1 vide order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure P-2) cancelled the allotment of booth No.9, Sector 8, Chandigarh, allotted to Singh Ravinder 2014.07.01 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- CWP No.2685 of 2014 the petitioner.
Against the order dated 18.05.2011 petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2013, order of cancellation was set aside, however, direction was issued to the petitioner to execute the lease deed and also to pay the forfeiture amount i.e.25% of the premium as provided under Rule 14(2) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973.
Against the order dated 31.01.2013 petitioner preferred revision dated 03.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) before the Advisor to the Administrator, which is still pending.
During the pendency of revision impugned order dated 15.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) of eviction has been passed by the Estate Officer.
Against the order dated 15.05.2013 petitioner preferred appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh (Appellate Authority) which has been dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2013 (Annexure P-5).Thereafter petitioner preferred review petition, which has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh (Appellate Authority) vide order dated 25.11.2013 (Annexure P-6).I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since revision petition against the order dated 31.01.2013 whereby cancellation of allotment order has been set aside subject to execution of lease deed and payment of forfeiture amount i.e.25% of the premium, is pending, if revision is allowed impugned orders will become redundant.
Learned Singh Ravinder 2014.07.01 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- CWP No.2685 of 2014 counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance of order dated 31.01.2013 the Special Secretary Finance (exercising the powers of Chief Administrator) accepted the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 18.05.2011.
In pursuance of order dated 31.01.2013 petitioner was required to execute the lease deed and also deposit 25% of the forfeiture amount along with ground rent, interest etc.Learned counsel submits that he is ready to comply with order dated 31.01.2013.
Otherwise merely on the technical ground of non-compliance of order dated 31.01.2013 within stipulated time of one month his revision may fail.
In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 31.01.2013.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that eviction order has been passed and appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that since the conditions of order dated 31.01.2013 have not been complied with, the order dated 18.05.2011 has become operative.
I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, vide order dated 18.05.2011 allotment of the booth was cancelled.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 31.01.2013 and petitioner was directed to pay forfeiture amount i.e.25% of the premium, ground rent, interest etc.It is the case of the petitioner that he could not comply with Singh Ravinder 2014.07.01 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- CWP No.2685 of 2014 the order dated 31.01.2013 being an innocent and illiterate person.
Petitioner is running a small business in the booth in question.
On 12.02.2014 while issuing notice of motion following order was passed:- “Contends that in terms of order dated 31.01.2013 passed by Chief Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh, petitioner is ready to deposit the forfeiture amount i.e.25% of the premium as provided under Rule 14(2) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold and Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 and is also ready to execute the lease-deed.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner shall also pay interest, if any, found due on the amount so calculated.
Notice of motion for 06.05.2014.”
.
The prayer of the petitioner is that he may be permitted to deposit the entire amount as ordered vide order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Chief Administrator.
The prayer appears to be just and fair.
He was always ready to comply with order dated 31.01.2013 but no calculation was supplied to the petitioner by respondent to deposit the amount.
Petitioner will be at liberty to move an application to the concerned authority for giving him calculations of the entire amount due against him.
Petitioner may move such application on or before 02.07.2014, upon which the concerned authority shall calculate the dues payable by the petitioner and intimate the same to the petitioner by 07.07.2014 and petitioner will deposit the dues by 15.07.2014.
In case the said amount is deposited, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate order on the revision petition.
Petitioner will also be at Singh Ravinder 2014.07.01 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- CWP No.2685 of 2014 liberty to move an application before the revisional authority for stay of the operation of order dated 31.01.2013 to the extent of the demand of deposit of forfeiture amount as well as the subsequent order whereby his eviction has been ordered.
In case such an application is moved with regard to stay of the operation of the ordeRs.the appropriate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate ordeRs.Revision shall be disposed of preferably within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
This order will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
Disposed of in above terMs.Copy of this order be given under signatures of the Bench Secretary.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge June 30, 2014 R.S.Singh Ravinder 2014.07.01 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh