(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Estate Officer made under '[section 8 or 8-A] may, within thirty days of the date of the communication to him of such order, prefer an appeal to the Chief Administrator in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Chief Administrator may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) The Ch ief Admi n istrator -nay, after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary, or reverse the order appealed from an.1 may pass such orders as he deems fit.
(3) The Chief Admi n istrator may, either of his own motion or on an application received in this behalf, at any time call for the record of any proceeding in which the Estate Officer has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit:
Provided that the Chief Administrator shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4) Where a person is aggrieved by any order of the Chief Administrator, deciding a case under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), he may, within thirty days of the date of communication to him of such decision, make an application in writing to the [Central Government] for revision against the said decision ; and the 2[Central Government] may confirm, alter or rescind the decision of the Chief Administrator.
COMMENTARY Arbitrary order - Revision - Petitioner was allowed to file his written submission by the Administrator, U.T. by a particular date - Revision petition was dismissed even before the expiry of date fixed for filing the submission without waiting for the particular date - Revision petition not decided in a proper and fair manner - Order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and liable to be quashed - M/s. Sawan Ram Vijay Kumar v. Advisor to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh, 1997 H.R.R. 606 D.B.
Limitation - Revisional Authority dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation as no explanation for delay was given by the petitioner - Order of revisional authority justified and not open to challange under Article 226 of Constitution - Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration v. Smt. Anita Arora, 2001 HRR 241 D.B.
Notice - Tenant's eviction - Allottee raised construction in SCO in violation ofprovisions ofthe Act 1952 Five floors instead of4 floors were constructed and partition was also effected - Show windows on rear sides were converted in booth - Petitioners were inducted as tenant about 5 years after order of resumption - They filed appeal about 10 years after the order of resumption contending that they being necessary parties, order of resumption is not, binding on them - There was no need to issue show cause notice to them because they were not occupying the premises when resumption proceedings were initiated - I. Substituted by Capital of Punjab (Development 8c Regulation) Amendment Act 17 of 1973
2. Substituted by Punjab Re-organisation (Chd.) (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1968 for "State Government".
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 31 No jural relation had come into existence between the petitioner and Chandigarh Administration - There was no violation of rule of natural justice - Raghubir Singh 's case 1993 HRR 621 and M/s Rajinder Kumar 's case 2002 HRR 797 (DB) distinguished - Petition dismissed - M's. Melody House Agencies v. Union Territory Administration through its Advisor, 2002 H.R.R. 579 D.B.
Opportunity - Misuse - Cancellation of lease - The revisior al authority based its order on Inspection Report made by the Law Officer No opportulay of hearing was afforded to the petitioner allottee to defend thei case while preparing the report of inspection - Order of Revisional Authority suffers from vice of illegalities as it violates principles of natural justice - The plea that report of inspection was available on the record is of no help - Petitioners being interested parties must have been given the notice before making the said report - It is incumbent upon quasi-judicial authority to make available the evidence to the person against whom such evidence is likely to be used - Bhajan Singh and • Sons (HUF) and Others v. Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 75 D.B.
Opportunity - Misuser - Petitioner's allottee let out her property to a tenant in bona fide manner - Tenant allegedly started misusing the tenanted property for running a Guest House in violation of terms of allotment - Estate Officer passed exparte order against allottee ignoring the principles of natural justice - There is merit in the contention of petitioner - Case remanded to Estate Officer for fresh decision - Petition allowed - Shama Sachdeva v. Advisor to • the Administrator, 2001 HRR 21 D.B.
Power of resumption and forfeitures - Appellate Authority under the Act is vested with wide powers to pass appropriate orders of resumption of site or forfeiting the amount as the circumstances of the case require - An order of forfeiture passed by Estate Officer can be maintained even where order of resumption has been quashed - Ashok Kumar 's case 1993 H.R.R. 640 followed - Bhajan Singh and Sons (HUF) and Others v. Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 75 D.B.
Review - Power of review is not an inherent power but like the power of appeal it must be conferred by law or by necessary implication - Orders passed by C. C. on the review application of allottee were rightly ignored by Estate Officer being non est - Order passed by Estate Officer resuming the site for non construction ofhotel on allotted site does not suffer from any illegality - Maharani Deepinder Kaur Burdwan v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1996 HRR 495 D.B. = 1996 (3) PLR 598.
—There is no provision of review under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder - Review application rightly dismissed as not maintainable - Sat Pal Bhatia v. Estate Officer, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 209 D.B.
Revisional Power - Chief Administrator can exercise power in his revisional jurisdiction and determine the legality of order passed by Estate Officer - These powers can be exercised without any limitation under Section 10(3) of the Act suo moto or on an application made in this behalf- But under Section 10 32 Capital of Punjab (Devcioniii.:nt and Regulation) Act, 1952
(1) appeal is provided against the order - In the present case Chief Secretary Finance exercising the power of ChiefAdministrator has fallen in en or of law by not entertaining the petitioner's application under Section 10(3) read with Rule 17 of the Rules 1960- Smt Gursharan Kaur v Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2004(1) H.R.R. 38 Tenant's interest - Notice - No order passed by an Authority effecting the interest of a tenant without hearing such tenant car oe sustained - The Administration passed an order of cancellation of lease knowing well that tenants were in occupation of the site, without hearing them - Order being illegal was quashed Held further, the authorities basing their decision on new and extraneous grounds of misuse are bound to give notice of grounds to the petitioner allottees - Bhajan Singh and Sons (HUF) v. Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 75 D.B.
Waiver -Alternative remedy - Petitioner challenging the order of Estate Officer failed to avail alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Capital of Punjab Act, 1952 - Petitioner must be deemed to have given up his right to challenge the order of Estate Officer resuming the site - Petitioner not entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of High Court - Harpal Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1997 H.R.R. 527 D.B.
*****