Rights commission pulls up Estate Office over 4-year delay in property transfer in Chandigarh

The Chandigarh Right to Service Commission has taken strict action over the delay of more than four years in transferring 50% ownership share of a house in Sector 9-D here.

Deepa Duggal and her daughter Guneeta Grover had filed an application on January 27, 2021, for transferring 50% ownership share of the property to her daughter. Under the Right to Service Act, such cases must be resolved within 40 working days. However, the matter remained pending for years without resolution.

The applicants submitted that the Estate Office repeatedly sought documents and clarifications from them, all of which were promptly provided. During the proceedings, the designated officer submitted that the original property file had been seized by the CBI in December 2015 in connection with another case and was later submitted before the Special CBI Judge, Chandigarh, as evidence.

On October 21, 2021, the Estate Office requested the CBI authorities that if the original record is no longer required, then the same may be supplied to the office so that the transfer application may be processed.

The commission questioned why the Estate Office took 10 months to communicate with the CBI regarding the seized file and why this crucial information was never conveyed to the applicants.

On examining the photocopies of the noting sheets of the file, it was found that Rakesh Kumar, clerk, was responsible for the delay on different occasions in putting up the file to his senior officials.

The commission held Rakesh guilty of not taking timely action in the matter due to which the designated officer failed to intimate the exact position regarding seizure of their original allotment file by the CBI to the applicants within the stipulated time-limit. Therefore, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs 7,000 on Rakesh.

The Chief Commissioner also held Shiv Kumar, Senior Assistant, guilty of not taking timely action in the matter due to which the designated officer failed to intimate the exact position regarding seizure of their original allotment file by the CBI to the applicants within the stipulated time-limit. Therefore, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs 3,000 on him.

The Commission also held that the then Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) failed in supervising the work of his subordinate officials, which led to a considerable delay. It was expected to inform the applicants that file had been seized by the CBI and the action on their request could only be taken as and when the file was received back in the Estate Office. Keeping in view the failure on his part, the Chief Commissioner issued a recordable warning to the AEO.