Chandigarh SCF owners get justice after 18 years

Dushyant Singh Pundir

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 23

After 18 years, the owners of a shop-cum-flat (SCF) in the city have finally got justice.

The UT Chief Administrator has set aside an order of the Estate Officer demanding misuse charges from the SCF owners. A penalty of Rs18 lakh imposed on the owners on account of misuse charges has also been waived.

Appeals were filed in the court of Dr Vijay Namdeorao Zade, UT Chief Administrator, by the SCF owner and his son, the co-owner, against the orders passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) on March 24, 2009, and against the demand of misuse charges from the appellants vide memo dated March 5, 2014, in respect of the SCF.

In the appeals, Vikas Jain, counsel for the appellants, submitted that the SCF in Sector 18 was earlier resumed as the misuse existed at the site. Against the resumption order, a revision petition was filed before the UT Adviser in 2002 which was disposed of on June 19, 2002, whereby the site was restored to the owner subject to the payment of a 10 per cent penalty. Further, the petitioner was directed to apply for a change in trade within 30 days.

In the order, the Adviser had specifically mentioned that as per the amendment in the Building Rules, the change of trade has been allowed by the Chandigarh Administration and as such the petitioner was free to apply for it. In compliance with the order, the owners deposited the penalty and applied for the change in trade within stipulated time. However, the AEO on October 27, 2003, issued a fresh show-cause notice to the owners upon proceedings which had already been disposed of by the Adviser.

“If the Estate Officer had any grouse against the order passed by the Adviser, they could have filed a civil writ petition before the High Court against the order, but instead of doing so, and in utter disobedience to the order passed the Adviser, the Estate Officer initiated fresh proceedings of misuse against the owners and demanded misuse charges in pursuance of the order passed by the AEO,” stated Jain.

He contended that when the owners had already complied with the order passed by the Adviser by depositing the penalty and by applying for change of trade within stipulated time, how could the Estate Office initiate fresh proceedings on the same issue which had already been disposed of by the Adviser?

Therefore, he requested to set aside the AEO order dated March 24, 2009, and the letter dated March 5, 2014, whereby the misuse charges were demanded from the appellants.

The counsel for the Estate Office agreed with the contentions of the counsel for the appellants that the owners had duly complied with the order passed by the Adviser. The counsel admitted the applicability of a notification dated June 5, 2002, which was issued by the Administration whereby conversion from one trade to another was allowed, in the present case.

“On the basis of the consensus arrived at between both the parties, the appeals are accepted and the impugned orders dated March 24, 2009, and March 5, 2014, passed by the AEO and the Estate Officer, respectively, are set aside,” ordered the Chief Administrator.