G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order Annexure P-7 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short 'the rules') canceling the lease of the disputed premises and directing the forfeiture of 10% of the premium of the site and the ground rent. The petitioner has also challenged the orders passed respectively by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh dismissing the appeal and the revision petition filed by it against the order of the Assistant Estate Officer.
2. The averments made in the writ petition, which have not been seriously contested by the respondents show that plots No. 142, 143 and 144 Sector 17-C were leased out to the petitioner under the rules on the basis of highest bid given by its representative on 14.7.1974. It appears that after taking the possession of the plots, the petitioner raised construction in violation of the conditions of allotment and the building rules. This led to the initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the lease. The Assistant Estate Officer issued notices Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 to the petitioner requiring it to show cause as to why the lease of the sites be not cancelled and the amount of premium and ground rent be not forfeited on the ground that petitioner has made constructions in violation of the rules and the conditions of allotment. Shri Rajinder Kumar filed replies dated 17.3.1980 and 12.5.1980. Thereafter the Assistant Estate Officer fixed the case for hearing on 12.5.1980, 26.5.1980, 14.7.1980 and 16.7.1980. On the request made by him, Shri Rajinder Kumar was supplied copy of the objections raised by the department. However on 16.7.1980, nobody appeared before the Assistant Estate Officer. The Assistant Estate Officer considered the report of the S.D.O. indicating that the violations were still existing and cancelled the lease of the site. Simultaneouly, he ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium and ground rent. The appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner, have been dismissed by the competent authorities.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of lease mainly on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and discrimination. It has pleaded that the Assistant Estate Officer did not give reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the order of cancellation of lease is arbitrary because similar violations made by other allottees have either remained untouched or have been compounded.
4. We have carefully perused the record of the case and in our opinion, the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of principle of natural justice is wholly untenable. Admittedly, notices Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 were duly served upon the petitioner and the order of cancellation of lease was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner. The Appellate as well as the Revisional Authorities have considered the points raised in the appeal and the revision petition and have given cogent reasons for rejecting the same. In his order, the Assistant Estate Officer noted that the violations made by the petitioner were still subsisting. Even before the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, the petitioner failed to prove that the violations have been removed. This is clearly borne out from the following extracts of the orders Annexures P-7, P-11 and P-13.
EXTRACTS FROM ORDER DATED 16.7,1980, ANNEXURE P-7.
Whereas Shri Rajinder Kumar & Sons were given a show cause notice dated 13.3.1980 to show cause as to why the said be not cancelled under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Site and Buildings Rules, 1973 and whole or part of the premium and ground rent calculated to the date of cancellation be not forfeited and have been given opportunity of being heard on 173.1980. Whereas Shri Rajinder Kumar Bhasin was present on 17.3.1980 and the case was adjourned to 7.4.1980 as the site was to be inspected personally alongwith S.D.O. (B). The site was inspected by the undersigned alongwith S.D.O. (B) on 25.3.80 and objections raised by the department were found to be correct, Party has further been given opportunity on 12.5.1980 and then 26.5.1980. On 26.5.1980 Shri Rajinder Kumar wanted a copy of objection. The copy was supplied and the case was again taken up on 14.7.1980. On 14.7.1980 Shri Rajinder Kumar Bhasin was present. He was directed to come up on 16.7.1980. He did not turn up on 16.7.1980 and the report of the S.D.O. (B) indicated that the violations are still existing. I am left with no alternative except to cancel the lease of the site in question.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 lease of the said site is hereby cancelled and further 10% of the premium of the site i.e. Rs. 28,400/-(Rupees Twenty eight thousand and four hundred only) as also ground rent of Rs. 43,640/- calculated to the date of cancellation is forfeited.
EXTRACT FROM ORDER DATED 20.4.1982, ANNEXURE- P11
5. After taking into consideration the facts of this case and also after forming an appraisal of the record of this case. I find that the unauthorised partitions in the building erected on the said sites and other material changes have been made by the appellants. This fact is established by the statement made before me by the counsel for the tenants who have also preferred an appeal before me and which was heard by me alongwith the present appeal. Not only this the counsel for the tenants produced before me a copy of the rent deed executed by the appellants with their tenants M/s Rajan Tailors which also proves that the appellants had themselves made the partitions as well as other additions and alternations in the said building. Since these unauthorised additions and alterations constitute breach of rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 and are still continuing, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of the Estate Officer. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
EXTRACT FROM ORDER DATED 27.10.1988, ANNEXURE P-13
I have heard Shri Gopal Krishan, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri K.K. Monga, representative of the Estate Officer. I have gone through the facts of the case very carefully. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of the minutes of the meeting held in the office room of the Finance Secretary on 7.2.1982 to consider the proposal regarding partitions in Two bays and Three bays sites in Sector 17, Chandigarh. Taking the shelter under the minutes of the said meeting the learned counsel contended that the partitions made by the petitioners be therefore regularised, it is strange that a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 7.2.1982 which was never circulated to the petitioners or to any private person except the officers concerned who attended the said meeting, how it has been obtained by the party. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to inform the name of the official concerned who supplied the copy of the minutes of the said meeting. I find that the party is not interested to tell the name of the official who supplied the copy of the minutes to it. The party who conceals the facts and does not disclose the truth before the Court, it cannot be given any relief even on the basis of equity. The conduct of the party is thus that it cannot be given any leniency or any relief from this Court. However, I would direct the Estate Officer to make a thorough enquiry and find out who was the official concerned who supplied the official document (i.e. the copy of the minutes of the meeting held in the office room of the F.S. on 7.2.1982 to consider the proposal regarding partition in two bay and three bay sites in Sector 17, Chandigarh) to a private party and then take necessary action under law/rules. The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the Estate Officer is illegal because the Estate Officer initiated proceedings under rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973. I do not agree with the learned counsel in this regard as the matter has earlier been agitated by the party before the Chief Administrator who after considering every aspect, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The petitioners have made unauthorised partitions alongwith additions and alterations. The Building Inspector inspected the site on 18.10.1988 and found the following violations:-
Basement: Found locked at the time of inspection.
Ground Floor. Shop divided into 4 mini shops with pacca partition. In the middle shop and left hand shop mazinine floor has been constructed for storage purposes against sanctioned plan. The name of the occupiers are as under :-
1. M/s Rajan Tailors
2. M/s Standard Restaurant
3. Handloom Emporium
4. M/s Siance.
Marble has been provided in the outer elevation against plan.
Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Floor : Occupied any A.G. Office, Wooden cabin has been made in the verandah.
It is thus evident from the above that the unauthorised additions and alterations still exist on the said site which constitute breach of Rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952. There is, therefore, no justification to interfere with the impugned orders of the Chief Administrator and the Estate Officer. A reference has been made to Dr. Chutani's case where the party was allowed to make partitions by the Administration. The representative of the Estate Office stated that in his case the plans were first got sanctioned by him from the competent authority and then the construction on the site was made. According to the representative of the Estate Officer this Court cannot decide the pattern or the design as it is the function of the Chief Administrator under the Building Rules, 1952. Moreover, condition No.11 of the allotment letter clearly speaks that no fragmentation is to be allowed. In the circumstances, the partitions, additions and alterations made on the site without the sanction of the competent authority definitely amount to the breach of rule 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952. The petitioners also cannot take the ground that they were not afforded due opportunity by the Estate Officer when he took action for the cancellation of the site in question. After perusing the papers on record, it is found that an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded by the Estate Officer and the due service was effected. Shri Rajinder Kumar, petitioner was asked on 14.7.1980 to remove the violations and come on 16.7.1930 for further proceedings. The petitioner did not turn up on 16.7.1980 and so the site was cancelled by the Estate officer on that very date. It, therefore, cannot be said that no opportunity was given or no service was effected on the petitioners. The representative of the Estate Officer referred to ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Sohan Singh and Ors. v. U.T. Chandigarh, (1978)80 P.L.R. 235 wherein it has been held that it is doubtful if the violations involved in that case could at all be compounded by the authorities. In other words the similar type of violations made by the petitioners in the instant case also therefore cannot be compounded by any authority as those violations are against the Zoning Plan and Architectural Control Sheets. The Zoning Plan is a statutory document and- so even if any sanction is given in contravention of the Zoning Plan, such a sanction in that event will be null and void.
5. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that it has not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Assistant Estate Officer or that the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have erred in rejecting its contentions.
6. In Babu Singh Bains v. Chandigarh Administration, (1997-1)115 P.L.R. 250 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 and also the action initiated by the Administration of Chandigarh for cancellation of the lease etc. on account of violation of the conditions of allotment and building regulations. In view of this decision we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the exercise of the powers by the concerned authorities under the Act of 1952. However, we cannot also ignore the fact that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner remained pending for a period of almost one decade and the present writ petition has also remained pending for another one decade. Therefore, as on date a period of twenty years has elapsed since the commencement of the proceedings for cancellation of the lease and during all these years the lease of the petitioner has remained alive on account of interim orders passed by the concerned authorities and this Court. During these twenty years a number of amendments have taken place and some minor violations of the building rules have been ordered to be compounded. Therefore, it is a fit case in which one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to remove the violations or get them compounded. Therefore, while upholding the orders of the Assistant Estate Officer. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-
(1) Within two months from today, the petitioner shall make an application to the competent authority seeking permission for compounding of the violations of the building rules and the letter of allotment. Simultaneously the petition shall give in writing that it is ready and willing to pay the compounding fee and interest as per the existing policy of the Chandigarh Administration. It shall also give in writing that the non-comoundable violations will be removed within the specified time schedule.
(2) Within one month of the receipt of the application of the petitioner, the competent authority shall make an order indicating therein as to which of the violations are compoundable and which are not. It shall also indicate the compounding fee and interest payable by the petitioner. The amount of interest shall be calculated from the date of first notice till the date of passing of the order.
(3) Within two months of the passing of the order by the competent authority, the petitioner shall deposit the compounding fee alongwith the interest payable from 27.8.1976 to the date of order.
(4) The petitioner shall give under taking to remove such all the violations which are held to be non-compoundable, within a period of six months and it shall physically remove the violations within that period.
(5) The amount of forfeiture ordered by the Assistant Estate Officer shall be ' deposited within four months from today alongwith interest @ 12% calculated from the date of cancellation of the lease i.e. 16.7.1980.
(6) In case the petitioner complies with the above directions, the lease of the property shall remain intact and the property shall not be resumed by the Administration, else the orders Annexures P-7, P-11 and P-13 shall stand automatically revived and the respondent shall be free to recover possession of the property from the petitioner in accordance with law.
A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner as well as the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh by registered post.