Estate Office demand for unearned profit set aside

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 29

Finance Secretary Ajoy Kumar Sinha, while exercising the power of the Chief Administrator under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act has quashed an order of the Estate Office (EO) demanding Rs 77.35 lakh on account of misuse and unearned profit in respect of a house in Milk Colony, Dhanas, while terming it “arbitrary”.

The order will have a far-reaching effect as the Chief Administrator directed the EO to bring likeness in all plot transfer cases of Dhanas where he observed that the Estate Officer transferred several plots without claiming unearned profit.

The case also highlights the harassment residents face at the hands of the Estate Office officials. The fight of a widow, Sarojani Devi (75), started soon after the then SDM, while exercising the power of the Estate Officer, issued two notices on October 30, 2015, and March 29, 2016, to pay Rs 77,35,946 on account of misuse charges and unearned profit in respect of plot number 275 at Milk Colony, Dhanas. The SDM also asked her to pay stamp duty.

The notices were issued after Sarojani Devi had got the transfer letter of the plot in her name on the basis of the will of her husband Hari Singh.

Challenging the EO orders, Sarojani’s counsel SK Jain and Vikas Jain stated that the demand of unearned profit by the Assistant Estate Officer after issuing the transfer letter was totally wrong as the EO had not charged anything for transferring similar properties in the past.

The counsel said Hari Singh had already got the plot transferred in his name and the EO had issued a no-dues certificate on January 1, 2015. Unearned profit was not demanded at that time too.

The plot had also been converted from animal area to residential area by the Estate Officer on July 10, 2008. So the question of the misuse also did not arise. Vikas Jain also produced a notification issued by the Finance Department on December 17, 1998, in which it was stated that no stamp duty was to be paid in the case of implementation of will. He also raised the issue as to how the SDM imposed the penalty for the misuse when the same property had already been converted from animal area to residential area.

After hearing the contentions of the Estate Office and the counsel for the appellant, the Chief Administrator set aside the orders issued by the Estate Officer for imposing Rs 77.35 lakh as penalty and remanded the case before the Estate Office to take judicious decision by taking into consideration the contentions raised by the counsel of the appellant and bring out the uniformity in such similar cases. The instate case should also be dealt on the same lines.