Punjab National Bank vs The Union Territory and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner purchased House No. 51, Sector 2, Chandigarh. This house originally belonged to Dewan Chetan Dass, Sr. Advocate. He had sold it to Ms. Bubbles Hora. The Department of Income Tax acquired it and in turn sold it to the Punjab National Bank.

On September 19, 1998, the Chandigarh Administration through its Estate Officer informed the petitioner that its request for transfer of rights in Site No. 11 Street D, Sector 2B had been accepted subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that it would "obtain the Occupation Certificate upto 31.12.98". A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P/8 with the writ petition. Thereafter, vide letter dated December 30, 1998, the petitioner was asked by the Estate Officer "to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,15,859/- on account of extension fee due upto 31.12.98 so as to enable this office to proceed further in the matter". A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P/11 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the orders at Annexures P/8 and P/11, the petitioner has filed the preset writ petition. It asserts that the house was duly occupied for a number of years. The question of leving any extension fee or completing the construction/obtaining the occupation certificate did not arise

Notice of motion was issued. Even a Local Commissioner was appointed. The re- port of the Local Commissioner is on the file.

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Administration has produced before us a photo copy of the order dated December 8, 1999 passed by the Finance Secretary. This order is taken on record as Mark ''A''. Mr. Aggarwal states that the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh has waived of the extension fee as calculated upto date. He further states that this order has been passed in recognition of the fact that the house was duly occupied by Dewan Chetan Dass for a number of years. Accordingly, the petitioner need not obtain a fresh occupation certificate nor, would it be necessary to pay the extension fee.

In view of the above, it is clear that the Administration has decided not to act upon the impugned orders. Even otherwise, these are wholly untenable in view of the fact that the occupation of the house by its original owner has not been disputed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.