Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of orders passed by respondents No.2 to 4, whereby the allotment of the transit site No.1549 Rehabilitation Colony Mauli Jagran, U.T.Chandigarh has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allotted a transit site No.1549 in Mauli Jagran, U.T. Chandigarh, vide allotment letter dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure P-1) by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The allotment of the aforesaid site was for those persons who did not have any other house and a transit site was therefore allotted to them including the present petitioner. There was an express condition in the aforesaid allotment letter with regard to the construction of toilet on the site within three months of the allotment and the construction of superstructure on the site within a period of nine months from the date of allotment, which period would be extended by a further period of three months. Various other conditions were also imposed. Thereafter, actual physical possession of the aforesaid site was delivered to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2, dated 28.03.2000 and from there, as per the aforesaid condition, the superstructure and toilet was to be constructed within the aforesaid stipulated period. However, the petitioner commenced construction on the site only in the year 2001. In the meantime, a notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner as to why the allotment should not be cancelled on account of breach of aforesaid conditions namely non-construction of the superstructure and toilet on the site within the stipulated period. It was thereafter that the impugned order dated 03.01.2002 (Annexure P-3) was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation/Estate Officer under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to construct the superstructure as well as the toilet on the site within the stipulated period.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that infact when the aforesaid order was passed on 03.01.2002, the petitioner had already constructed the site but wrongly the aforesaid order was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred anan appeal before the learned Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, but the appeal was also dismissed vide Annexure P-4 on the same ground vide order dated 19.08.2009. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred which was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh on 18.11.2009 vide Annexure P-5, being not maintainable.

She further submitted that once the petitioner has already constructed house on the site in the year 2001, there was no occasion for the respondents to cancel the allotment in view of violation of the condition imposed in the allotment letter. In this regard she referred to certain electricity bills which have been produced before this Court today, to substantiate her claim that house was constructed in the year 2001 and that the petitioner and his family have been residing therein since then.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.T. Chandigarh and the Municipal Corporation have submitted that in pursuance of the last order passed by this Court, they have produced the relevant record as well as the grounds of appeal, filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which is taken on record as Mark ‘X’. Both learned counsels have submitted that the petitioner had never constructed the house in the year 2001 and that there is no document on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the house was constructed in the year 2001. They have, in this regard, referred to the impugned order passed by the Municipal Corporation (Annexure P-3), whereby the cancellation of the site was ordered on the basis of a report dated 03.01.2002 received from the Building Inspector, recording that the petitioner had not constructed a house on the site. It was also submitted that various opportunities were given to the petitioner but he did not appear and consequently, the cancellation order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Estate Officer.

Learned counsel has also produced before this Court a copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. By referring to the grounds of appeal they submitted that even in the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner in the year 2005, the petitioner himself stated in para No.3 that the petitioner could not construct a house on the allotted site. Rather he stated that he had constructed a house, which was his parental house in his village and because of poor financial position he could not construct a house on the allotted site. They submitted that there is nothing in the grounds of appeal to show that he had constructed a house in the year 2001. Therefore the petitioner had himself admitted in the grounds of aforesaid appeal that he did not construct the house within the stipulated time. They further submitted that after the passing of the cancellation order, the petitioner constructed the house on the site and that such construction was unlawful and cannot be sustained.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and grounds of appeal.

When the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid transit site vide Annexure P-1 dated 16.10.1998, there were conditions attached in the allotment letter. Conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are reproduced as under:-

It was thereafter that in the year 2000, the actual physical possession of the site was given to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2, dated 28.03.2000. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2002 (Annexure P-3) would show that it was on the basis of the report of Building Inspector that no site was constructed by the petitioner, that the order of cancellation was passed. It was so specifically recorded by the Assistant Commissioner/Estate Officer that despite repeated opportunities given to the petitioner, he failed to appear on the date and time fixed and that there was a breach and violation of the aforesaid conditions as reproduced above, that the petitioner did not construct the site.

The petitioner filed an appeal in the year 2005 and a perusal of the grounds of appeal would show that it was rather admitted by the petitioner in his grounds of appeal that due to his poor financial condition he could not construct a house on the allotted site. No-where it is so stated in the grounds of appeal as to when he constructed a site. It is therefore relevant to reproduce para No.3 of the grounds of appeal as follows:-

It becomes abundantly clear that the petitioner did not construct a house on the site within the aforesaid stipulated period and even upto the cancellation order.

So far as some electricity bills, which are produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner today in Court are concerned, the same are not of any relevance in view of the fact that, infact, the electricity bills pertain to the year 2010 and onwards and therefore have no significance upon the merits of the present case. The categorical stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had constructed the house in the year 2001 cannot be substantiated by any document and rather on the other hand a perusal of para No.3 of his own grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority would show that he could not construct thee site.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality or any error in the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned and find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.