Punjab-Haryana High Court
S. Harnam Singh vs Union Territory Through The Estate ... on 25 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)107PLR481
JUDGMENT Naresh Chander Jain, J.
1. The challenge herein pertains to the resumption orders of House No. 21, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh at the instance of the owner.
2. As the facts emerge from the perusal of the writ petition and the impugned orders, the petitioner entered into a partnership with his relations and, one Mrs. Suman Tulsi for a running a Guest House in the afore-mentioned premises under the name and style of Ramnik Guest House when an Inspector of the Enforcement Branch of the Estate Office, Chandigarh sent a report to the effect that the petitioner's house was being used in violation of conveyance deed. Notice was sent to the petitioner and the occupier but no notice was, ever received by the petitioner. Mrs. Suman Tulsi who received notice as occupier appeared through her lawyer on January 31, 1993. The order of resumption Annexure P.2 was passed by the Estate Officer which was appealed against by Mrs. Suman Tulsi only before the Advisor to the Chief Administrator who rejected the appeal vide Annexure P.3. It is the legality and the validity of the orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
3. At the very outset it deserves special mention that no written statement to the petition has been filed and none has appeared for the respondents to oppose the writ petition. In other words, the averments on facts made by the petitioner have not been controverted.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no notice was served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders Annexure P.2 and P.3 having been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard are illegal and void. It has further been argued that the order of the Advisor Annexure P.3 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the order of resumption Annexure P.2 passed by the Estate Officer has been upheld upon a ground which was never mentioned in the show cause notice. Pointed attention of this Court was drawn to the finding of the Advisor wherein running of a school has been held to be misuse. The counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service other grounds as well which have been taken in the petition but this Court need not go into any other ground as the petition deserves to succeed on two points to which reference has been made above. The averment made by the petitioner that the owner was never served with any show cause notice has remained unchallenged. No return is forthcoming on the record of the case to controvert the allegation made by the petitioner that he was never served with any notice. The order of resumption Annexure P.2, therefore, deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.
5. Adverting to the second ground of challenge, it is manifest from the perusal of the order of the Advisor Annexure P,3 that resumption has been upheld on the ground that a school was being run in the house. This was precisely not the ground mentioned in the show cause notice. The Advisor Union Territory, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to record a finding on the point which did not figure in the show cause notice. In other words, it can safely be observed that the order of resumption cannot be upheld on the ground regarding which no opportunity was afforded to the owner and the occupier of the demised premises. Since the two orders of resumption deserve to be quashed on the afore-mentioned reasonings, the other grounds need not be gone into by this Court particularly when, as has been noticed above, the respondents did not file any return.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed, the resumption orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.