Harbans Singh Ahluwalia vs State of Punjab and Another

G.C. Garg, J.—Challenge in this writ-petition is to the orders dated 8.2.1991, 16.6.1992 and 11.3.1993, Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 respectively whereby the plot in question was ordered to be resumed for mis-user.

Plot No. 840, Phase-III-B-I, S.A.S. Nagar was initially allotted in favour of one P.K. Sanyal vide allotment letter dated 6.1.1972. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner from the original allottee on payment of full consideration. Respondent-2 thereupon executed a conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter raised construction on the plot which as per the terms of the letter was meant for only residential purpose. Thereafter a report was made by the Field Staff in July 1985 and January, 1990 that the plot in question was being used as a Restaurant-cum-Lodge by Narinder Singh Ahluwalia, the general power of attorney holder of the present petitioner, i.e. the owner of the plot. The Estate Officer, Urban Estate Punjab, Mohali after serving a notice passed order dated 8.2.1991, Annexure P-2, whereby he in exercise of his powers u/s 10 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 resumed the plot in question with superstructure and also forfeited the ten per cent price of the plot including interest etc. deposited by the allottee in favour of the Government. The balance amount of the plot was ordered to be returned to the allottee. Appeal. filed by the present petitioner against the order of resumption was dismissed by the Chief Administrator by order dated 16.6.1992, Annexure P-3. The Chief Administrator, however, by taking a lenient view in the matter, allowed the petitioner a month''s time to stop the mis-user of the premises. He, therefore, ordered that in case the mis-user of the premises is stopped within the period allowed, the order dated 8.2.1991 of the Estate Officer shall not be implemented and in that eventuality, the petitioner will have to deposit 10% of the total value of the plot as penalty with the Estate Officer. If, however, the mis-user is not stopped within the period of one month, the order of the Estate Officer shall stand implemented. It seems that the petitioner did not stop the mis-user of the premises and he rather chose to prefer a revision against the appellate order. The Revisional Authority observed that the petitioner was granted one month''s time by the Chief Administrator to stop the mis-user but he has not taken the benefit of the same and even during the hearing of the revision, the attorney of the petitioner neither showed any regrets for mis-using the premises nor has he expressed his willingness to stop the misuse. The revision was consequently dismissed by order dated 11.3.1993, Annexure P-4 by upholding the order of the Chief Administrator. This is how the petitioner has impugned the aforesaid three orders in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mis-user has since been stopped. However, it is not necessary for me to go into this question for the simple reason that the dispute raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh Bains etc. Vs. Union of India and others etc., wherein their Lordship disposed of the appeals pending before them by directing as under:-

"Admittedly, the appellants were using the premises for non-residential purpose in a residential area. Therefore, the authorities were well within their power to issue notice for resumption of the properties. However, pending disposal of these matters, the appellants have stated that they had already stopped misuser an year ago. The appellants should file an affidavit before the Estate Officer stating that they have already stopped misuser of the premises. On such an affidavit being filed, it would be open to the Estate Officer to have it verified whether they have already stopped the misuser. If they have already stopped misuser, the order of resumption may be revoked. If they have not, the order passed by this Court would not be of any help to the appellants. The order of resumption would stand upheld. The Estate Officer may fix any reasonable penalty for misuse and the appellants shall pay over the same. If they were to repeat the misuser, the Estate Officer would be free to resume the property without taking any recourse to fresh proceedings."

The Supreme Court further observed :

"The appellants, admittedly, have been using the residential premises for non-residential purpose converting it into a shop contrary to'' the conditions of the sale and also the Rules. Thereby, it is clear case of misuser of the premises. However, an opportunity is given to the appellants to stop the misuser within six months from today and pay reasonable penalty levied by Estate Officer on misuser. They should file an undertaking before the Estate Officer within one month from today that they would stop the misuser within six months from today. On expiry of six months, it would be open to the Estate Officer to verify whether the appellants have stopped the misuser. If they would have not, the resumption order would get revived and thereafter it would be open to the Estate Officer to deal with the property in accordance with law without further reference to the appellants or taking any further action in this behalf. If the misuser is repeated, he would be free to resume the property without further proceedings. Reasonable penalty may be fixed and the appellants shall pay over the same."

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had been using the residential premises in question for non-residential purpose i.e. for running a Restaurant-cum-Lodge contrary to the conditions of sale and the Rules. Thus it is a clear case of misuser of the property in question. However, for the view taken by the apex Court, petitioner in the present case as well is given an opportunity to stop the misuser within three months from today and pay reasonable penalty levied by the Estate Officer for misuser. The petitioner shall accordingly file an undertaking in the shape of an affidavit before the Estate Officer, Urban Estate Punjab, S.A.S. Nagar within one month from today that he would stop the misuser of the premises in question, if it is still continuing, within three months from today and on the expiry of three months, it would be open to the Estate Officer to verify, whether the petitioner has stopped the misuser or not. If the petitioner fails to stop the misuser, resumption order of the premises will get revived and thereafter the Estate Officer would be at liberty to deal with the property in accordance with law without further reference to the petitioner or taking any further action in that behalf. If the misuser is repeated, the Estate Officer would be free to resume the property without further proceedings and in that event, the penalty to the tune of 10% of the total value of the plot as already levied by the Estate Officer shall be payable by the petitioner. It is further made clear that in case the undertaking/affidavit as aforesaid is not filed within the time allowed, this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations and directions stated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.