High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 02 P&H CK 0156

Sukhpreet Singh vs Union Territory and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 February 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J · G.S. Sandhawalia, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 5345 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 360 words

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by learned Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration on 22.12.2010 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner has sought extension of time of a five days in depositing the charges for misuse.

2.

The residential site bearing No. 3343 Sector 21-D, Chandigarh was resumed on 4.12.2007 on account of misuse as the same was used for the office of Tourist Bus Service and for the office of Communist Party of India.

3.

An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. However, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by the learned Advisor to the Administrator in view of the fact that the misuse has been stopped. The learned Advisor directed the restitution of the site, subject to the condition that misuse charges, penal charges & interest etc., shall be paid by owner within 30 days from the date of dispatch of the order. Such order was passed on 17.2.2010 but communicated to the petitioner on 23.2.2010. The petitioner deposited the said amount on 29.3.2010. The Estate Officer found that the deposit by the petitioner is beyond the period allowed by the Advisor as the letter was pasted by the process server on 19.3.2010.

4.

Petitioner filed an application for extension of time but it has been dismissed by the learned Advisor on the ground that such application amounts to review of the order.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the delay of 5 days in deposit of the amount is not such a default which cannot be extended. There is a dispute regarding the date on which the petitioner was informed of the order. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has deposited the amount, may be after a delay of 5 days, we find that the order of cancellation of the site vide communication dated 17.6.2010 and the order passed by the learned Advisor on 22.12.2010 declining to extend the period of deposit is not sustainable.

6.

Consequently, we set aside the said orders by extending time to deposit the amount for misuse.

7.

Disposed of in the above terms.