JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant s father was allotted a plot measuring 763 sq. yards in Sector 7-C, Chandigarh by the Chandigarh Administration by means of an auction sale and a deed of conveyance was executed on 13.10.1970. Subsequent, the site was transferred in favour of the appellant. A showroom was constructed on the site and in the year 1974, the building was let out to Allahabad Bank. Though it is claimed that the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh gave consent for such letting, no material has been placed before the Court in support of this version.

3. In view of the infringement of the conditions of sale read with the Rules, namely, Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, the Estate Officer by an order dated 25.11.1980 resumed the site on the ground of misuser and also forfeited 10% of the cost of site. This was done after issuing show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing of the appellant. The power of resumption is conferred by Section 8-A of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.

4. It appears that the appellant filed an injunction suit in the year 1982 against the Bank to restrain it from using the premises, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi. The Estate Officer initiated eviction proceedings against the Bank and passed an order of eviction on 7.11.1984. The appeal and revision filed by the Bank failed. However, the revisional authority by an order dated 14.6.1989 granted two years time to the Bank to stop the misuser. It is the case of the appellant that even thereafter the Bank did not vacate, and therefore, he filed a writ petition in the High Court to direct vacation of the premises by the Bank. The writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the undertaking given by the Bank to vacate the premises on 31st December 1991. The Estate Officer took possession on 18.12.1991 and sealed the building. The appellant then filed CWP No. 11596 of 1993 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying for quashing the order of resumption and for restoration of showroom. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that if the appellant makes an application under Rule 11-D of the Rules of 1960, such an application would be decided by the appropriate authority within a month. Against this order of the High Court, the appellant filed SLP (C) No. 23499 of 1994 which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 8.11.1995 subject to the observations made therein. The following is the text of the order of this Court :-

"Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the petitioner will file an application in accordance with Rule 11(d) of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 within a period of eight weeks from today and therein raises all the points agitated in the present special leave petition. With the above statement, Mr. Sanghi seeks permission to withdraw this Petition. The prayer is allowed.

In case any such application is filed within the period stipulated above, the concerned authority will dispose of the same in accordance with law within two months from the date of its receipt. Needless to say, if any order adverse to the petitioner is passed on that application, the petitioner will be at liberty to assail the same in the appropriate forum."

At this stage, a reference to Rule 11-D may be made :-

Rule 11-D :

(1) Where a site has been resumed under Section 8-A of Act No. XXVII of 1952 for any reasons, the Estate Officer may, on an application, re-transfer the site to the outgoing transferee, on payment of an amount equal to 10 percent of the premium originally payable for such property or one third of the difference between the price originally paid and its value at the time when the application for transfer is made, whichever is more.

xx xx xx

Provided that such transfer shall be permissible only if -

(i) where the site has been resumed on grou