Major Babu Singh Baina v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh .

Order

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 8-4-1980.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a House No. 341, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh for residential purpose. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer resumed the site under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that the house in question was being misused as the appellant was running a private Guest House in the residential sector. The appellant, aggrieved against the aforesaid order, submitted an appeal under Section 10 of the Act and the said appeal was also dismissed. The appellant did not challenge those proceedings any further and as such the order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 8-A of the Act became final. The Estate Officer then started proceedings under Section 5 of the Punjab Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Act). The appellant appeared before the Estate Officer and contested the proceedings. The Estate Officer by order dated 14-3-1975 directed the appellant to vacate the house in question which had already been resumed by an order passed under Section 8-A of the Act. Against the above order of the Estate Officer the appellant filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 1836 of 1978. The High Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for redeciding the case. After the remand the appellate authority by its order dated 28-8-1978 dismissed the appeal. The appellant again filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that in view of the Full Bench judgment in LPA No. 101 of 1977 the controversy stands concluded in the case and as such dismissed the writ petition in limine by order dated 8-4-1980. In these circumstances the appellant has come before this Court by grant of special leave.

3. We have gone through the Full Bench judgment in LPA No. 101 of 1977 reported in 1980 PLR 621. The controversy in that Full Bench case was regarding an opportunity to be given or not to a tenant to contest in the proceedings under Section 8-A of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Full Bench had nothing to do with the controversy raised in the present case, in view of the fact that the appellant before us is an owner of the house in question and there is no controversy that the owner must get an opportunity of hearing in proceedings under Section 8-A of the Act. As already mentioned above the appellant had challenged the order passed against him under Section 8-A of the Act by filing an appeal and the same had finally terminated against him and those proceedings had become final so far as the appellant is concerned.

4. In view of the above circumstances we permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to argue the appeal on merits of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant made strenuous effort to argue that the earlier proceedings taken under Section 8-A of the Act were wrong and illegal as no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant and as such those proceedings violated the principle of natural justice. We are not convinced with the aforesaid argument. As already mentioned above the appellant filed an appeal under the Act against the order passed under Section 8-A and after the order of the appellate authority no further proceedings were taken for challenging the aforesaid order by way of writ or otherwise. The present proceedings before us are in respect of an order passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Eviction Act. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any infirmity whatsoever of order passed by the Estate Officer under the Eviction Act. In view of these circumstances we find no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

5. We grant one year's time to vacate the house in question provided the appellant furnishes an undertaking before the Estate Officer to hand over the vacant possession of the house and shall not allow any person to occupy the house in any manner, transfer or alienate or encumber the property in question. One month's time is granted for filing the undertaking. In failing to furnish the undertaking as mentioned above the respondent would be free to take appropriate action accordingly. In case the appellant is entitled to refund of the amount, the Estate Officer would pass appropriate order in that event.