Chandigarh: Relief for Army officer's widow as Estate Office letter for resumption order set aside

Dushyant Singh Pundir

Chandigarh, November 1

In a major relief for the widow of a late Army officer, the court of UT Chief Administrator has set aside the impugned letter issued by the Estate Office (EO), wherein she was requested to supply the resumption order against her Sector-10 house issued on June 10, 1993.

Raminder Kaur Virdi, the widow of Brigadier Sahib Singh Virdi, had filed an appeal in the court of UT Chief Administrator Vijay Namdeorao Zade against a June 12 letter issued by the EO, whereby she was asked to supply the resumption order or an NOC issued by the authority or file an appeal before the Chief Administrator to set aside the resumption order dated June 10, 1993.

Vikas Jain, the counsel for the appellant, stated that the property purchased by the deceased husband of the appellant in 1965 was being used by her as her residence.

Brig Sahib had executed the will on December 12, 1991, bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties to the appellant. He breathed his last on October 22 last year, and following his demise, the appellant applied for the transfer of the house in her name on the basis of the registered will.

Jain submitted that the appellant had been asked to write an application to the Estate Office, stating therein that the property had not been misused. An application in that regard was submitted on February 13 this year. He stated that the appellant came to know from the EO that the house “was resumed in 1993 without showing any resumption order but only by saying that there is an entry in the resumption register, dated June 10, 1993, which showed that the site in question had been resumed.”

The Estate Office issued the impugned letter, dated June 13, 2023, whereby the appellant was requested to furnish any restoration order in respect of the resumption order, even without showing the resumption order or the record of any show-cause in pursuance of the aforementioned order.

“The EO is only relying upon an illegal entry made in the resumption register website even without showing any supporting record, which is totally illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside,” stated Jain.

The counsel for the Estate Office stated that the property stood resumed on June 10, 1993, on account of misuse, but the record of the file was not traceable. Therefore, the EO had rightly asked the appellant to furnish the restoration order in respect of the resumption order, stated the counsel.

In his order, the Chief Administrator said, “The Estate Office is the custodian of the records relating to properties; how can they ask the appellant to produce the restoration order when they themselves failed to show the resumption order?” Consequently, the impugned June 13 letter was set aside.