Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

UT Chief Administrator sets aside Estate Office order on misuse charges

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Dushyant Singh Pundir

Advertisement

Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 24

Providing much-need relief against misuse charges, the court of Chief Administrator of the UT has set aside the order of the Estate Office wherein misuse charges of over Rs 18 lakh were imposed on the owner of a house in Sector 35, Chandigarh.

Not on a single occasion the Estate Office proved the alleged misuse. The orders dated August 26, 2014, August 11, 2016, and October 17, 2016, are set aside. — Dr Vijay Namdeorao Zade, Chief Administrator, UT

Advertisement

Rawal Singh, a resident of Sector 35-D, filed an appeal in the court of Dr Vijay Namdeorao Zade, Chief Administrator, UT, against the orders of the Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) and the SDM (South), both exercising the powers of Estate Officer, whereby appellant was asked to deposit the misuse charges in respect of his house.

According to brief fact of the case, the house was allotted to appellant on November 10, 1967. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the house could only be used for the ‘residential’purpose. During inspection, it was found that the house was being misused as “paying guest house” on the ground floor in one room (165 sq ft).

Accordingly, a show-cause notice was served upon the appellant on July 13, 2011. In response to the notice, Gurjit Kaur, daughter of the appellant, intimated the Estate Office on July 28, 2011, that the house was locked and was not being used for any PG accommodation.

Thereafter, the AEO on August 26, 2014, after relying upon the inspection report dated January 15, 2013, wherein it was stated that no misuse was found, ordered to recover the misuse charges from July 13, 2011, to date of intimation of no misuse by the owner on July 28, 2011.

Thereafter, the SDM (South) on August 11, 2016, after relying upon the inspection report dated August 10, 2016, wherein it was stated that the misuse was not found, ordered to recover the misuse charges.

Vikas Jain, counsel for the appellant, stated that the Estate Officer had issued the impugned order/letters illegally and arbitrarily.

He contended that the appellant had given one room of the house on rent for the security purpose and on receipt of the show-cause notice on July 13, 2011, the daughter of the appellant submitted a letter on July 28, 2011, by stating that no alleged misuse was there at the site. Thereafter, inspections were conducted by the Estate Office on March 27, 2012, and August 28, 2012, wherein the inspecting staff stated that no misuse was identified at the site and in the inspection report dated January 15, 2013, the inspecting officer stated that only one room was occupied by two persons and were paying Rs 5,000 per month rent to the owner and rest of the house was occupied by the owner, thus, no misuse found at the site in question.

Therefore, by relying upon the inspection report, the AEO on August 26, 2014, ordered to recover the misuse charges from July 13-28, 2011, but the misuse charges were never communicated to the appellant.

Thereafter, the daughter of the appellant on September 4, 2015, again intimated the Estate Office that the house was lying vacant and her parents were staying in Patiala and no misuse existed at the site since its inception. Again the site was got inspected on August 10, 2016, wherein also the inspecting staff reported that no misuse was found at the site. So, in the present case, the order of recovery of misuse charges were ordered twice on August 26, 2014, and August 11, 2016, by the two authorities for the misuse which never existed, stated Jain.

On the contrary, the counsel for the Estate Office stated that inspection reports depicted that no misuse activities could be identified as half portion of the house was locked does not mean that there was no misuse existed at that time.

After hearing both the parties, the Chief Administrator stated that not on a single occasion the Estate Office proved the alleged misuse and set aside the orders dated August 26, 2014, August 11, 2016 and October 17, 2016.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement