3-decade-old controversy ends as court sets aside lease cancellation order

Chandigarh: Nearly three-decade old controversy involving an industrial area plot has culminated, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the UT Assistant Estate Officer’s order passed in 1989 cancelling the lease of the site for the violation of building bylaws.

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 25

Nearly three-decade old controversy involving an industrial area plot has culminated, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the UT Assistant Estate Officer’s order passed in 1989 cancelling the lease of the site for the violation of building bylaws.

The building owner removed the violations from the site within the stipulated period, but failed to deposit the forfeiture amount of Rs 675 in time.

The order by the Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal and Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal came on a petition filed against the UT Administration, Assistant Estate Officer and other respondents by Rajiv Aggarwal and another petitioner through senior advocate Arun Jain and Vikas Jain.

The Bench was told that the Assistant Estate Officer passed the impugned order dated January 20, 1989, cancelling the lease of site in Phase II, Industrial Area, and imposed 10 per cent of the forfeiture amount, interest and other dues on the ground of alleged violations of the building bylaws, involving increase in the parking area.

It was added that the site was restored after a conditional order was passed that the building owner would get right all violations by August 31, 2001. The owner was also directed to deposit the forfeiture amount and inform the UT Estate Officer regarding removal of the violations

Seeking the dismissal of the petition, Assistant Estate Officer submitted that the petitioners did not comply with the conditional appellate order dated June 6, 2001, wherein the petitioners were specifically ordered to pay the dues within 30 days. But they failed to comply with the order. After a delay of more than a decade, they deposited the amount on their own.

Taking up the matter, the Bench observed that the petitioners had deposited the forfeiture amount and also deficiency in the court fee amounting to Rs 2, 61, 000. “Since the petitioners had removed the building violations as per the report dated March 10, 2016, and further they had deposited the due amount along with interest on April 11, 2016, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside”.

Allowing the writ petition, the Bench quashed the impugned orders, while clarifying that the petitioners or their successors would not be entitled to any relief in case they committed such violations again on the basis of subsequent removal of the same.