Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bira vs U.T. Administration And Anr. on 9 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR758
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This petition has been filed to quash the orders dated 17.11.1987 and 2.4.1991 passed by the competent authority constituted under the Chandigarh Allotment of Low Cost Tenements on Lease Hold and Hire Purchase Basis Scheme, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Scheme) and the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh.
2. The averments made in the writ petition show that the low cost tenements No. 2016/8, Sector 32-C, was allotted to the petitioner on 28.12.1985 under the Scheme of 1979. Proceedings under Clause 9 of the allotment letter were initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of the allotment on the ground that he had sold the tenement. The Tehsildar (C) exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, passed the order dated 17.12.1987 for cancellation the allotment of the tenement in question. That order has been upheld by the Chief Administrator on 2.4.1991 while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
3. In the meantime, proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated against the petitioner and an order of ejectment was passed on 21.3.1988. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh as withdrawn.
4. The petitioner has challenged the orders Annexure P.2 and P.5 primarily on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice by stating that the notice issued by the competent authority proposing cancellation of allotment made in his favour was not served upon him.
5. The respondents have contested the petitioner's assertion regarding nonservice of notice. They have pleaded that the show cause notice date 7.7.1987 was issued to the owner as well as the occupier but none appeared despite valid service.
6. At the hearing counsel of the petitioner, Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents fairly and candidly stated that the record of the respondents do not contain any evidence regarding the service of notice upon the petitioner. He stated that the person who was entrusted with the task of serving the notice upon the petitioner simply reported that the petitioner was not found at the given address and, therefore, he had pasted the notice on the property.
7. We have ourselves perused the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents and find that the show cause notice issued by the competent authority was not served upon the petitioner. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order Annexure P.2 passed by the Tehsildar is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. The order passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of the Tehsildar is also liable to be quashed on the ground that such confirmation cannot validate an order which is nullity in the eye of law.
8. For the reason mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders Annexures P.2 and P.5 are declared illegal and quashed. The consequential orders passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are also set aside.
However, liberty is given to the competent authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the competent authority on 14.10.1998 who shall pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. Copy of this order be given Dasti on payment of the fee prescribed for urgent applications.