@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R.S. Mongia, J.@mdashVide allotment letter dated 27th November, 1957, the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 47, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh, by
the Chandigarh Administration. According to the petitioner, he had, got a plan sanctioned for completing a 2 1/2 storeyed house on the said plot.
However, the entire 2\ storey could not be completed by the petitioner within the initial stipulated period and consequently vide order dated 26th
May, 1970 (Annexure P-1) the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, resumed the site in question and forfeited 10% of the money paid in respect thereof.
2. The petitioner filed appeal against the above-said order of the Estate Officer before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, and he was given
opportunity to obtain the completion certificate after all the formalities had been fulfilled within a period of three months of the order which was
passed on 5th July, 1971. It is not necessary to go into further details of the matter. The fact is that the petitioner could not complete the
construction of the entire house, and ultimately vide order dated 13th July, 1977 (Annexure P~5), the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, passed an
order, whereby the site in question that he would complete the building according to the sanctioned plan and obtain occupation certificate by 14th
October, 1977.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that well before the extended date, i. e. 14th October, 1977, he had completed the entire building and had applied
for the occupation certificate However, according to the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Building) told the petitioner that since it will take
some time before the occupation certificate could be issued, he would be well advised to obtain further ex- tension from the Chief Commissioner.
It may be observed here that no order was passed after 14th October, 1977 by the Authorities. In the order dated 13th July, 1977, the Chief
Commissioner had observed that the Building Inspector had stated that during his inspection of the site on 12th July, 1978, he found the ground
floor of the building complete except flooring in front and back courtyard ; first floor and Barsati floor were upto roof slab and structurally
complete. The ground floor was found locked. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been denied that any application
was made by the petitioner for getting occupation certificate.
4. The petitioner had applied for further examination by a review application to the Chief Commissioner on the ground that though he had
submitted an application for occupation certificate much prior to 14th October,: 1987, yet he had not been issued the occupation certificate. This
application for extension of time was filed in the year 1977 itself as it has been numbered as 127 of 1977. This was rejected on 22nd June, 1979,
on the ground that no further review application was maintainable against the order of the Chief Commissioner, dated 13th July, 1977.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the year 1977 itself he had approached the Authorities for further extension of time because
though he had completed the building within the extended period i.e. 14th October, 1977 but occupation certificate had not been issued. No
efforts were made by the Authorities to find out whether the building was actually complete or not. Otherwise also, he submitted that it is admitted
case that at least 1 1/2 storey of the building was complete even prior to the order dated 13th July, 1977 and he could have obtained the
occupation certificate by just submitting the revised plan.
6. I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The whole idea of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1952, is that the Chandigarh town should have developed within a stipulated time. Even if the petitioner had completed 1 1/2 storey within the
extended period, there was no justification to resume the site, inasmuch as even for 1 1/2 storey the revised plan could have been submitted. If for
one reason or the other, the petitioner could not complete the entire building i.e. 2 1/2 storey which was the original plan, that would be no ground
to resume the site in questions, if on the date of resumption the portition of building which had already been constructed fulfilled the requirement of
law to the effect that some building must be constructed on the site within a stipulated period. In other words, supposing a person had g6t
sanctioned a plan for a double storey house but he completes only one storey and can get occupation certificate just by submitting revised plan for
the single storey ; in that eventuality the site should not be resumed There is no denial that on the date of the filing of the writ petition, the entire
building was complete. The writ petition was filed in the year 1980 and the petitioner''s dispossession was stayed.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed, the order of resumption of the site in question is hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed to take appropriate steps expeditiously to issue occupation certificate to the petitioner if it has already been not issued so far. There will be
no order as to costs.
