The court's decision was based on the petitioner's claim that all non-sanctionable building violations have been removed, and the directive to the Assistant Estate Officer to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. Notice of motion to the respondents.

2. On the asking of Court, Shri Atul Nehra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Shri Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing counsel for the Chandigarh Administration.

3. The building in question belonging to the petitioner was ordered to be resumed on account of violations in construction.

4. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been rejected. It further appears from the record that proceedings under the Public Premises Act have also been decided against the petitioner and eviction order has been passed. During the course of arguments today, an affidavit dated july 17, 2006 has been filed by the petitioner. The said affidavit is taken on record.

5. In the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the entire building which is in possession of different tenants and that the petitioner ahs got removed all the non-sanctionable building violations from the tenants as detailed in the order of the Chief administrator, UT, Chandigarh dated August 16, 2002 and as mentioned by the Assistant Estate Officer in his order also. It has been specifically stated that there is no building violation as on today.

6. In view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Assistant Estate officer (exercising the powers of Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh), respondent No.3 to enquire into the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioner and find out as to whether any building violations which are not sanctionable still existing or not. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner shall be required to file a detailed and comprehensive representation within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, by annexing all the relevant documents and by specifically pleading that all the building violations have been removed which are not sanctionable. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, the assistant Estate Officer shall look into the matter and to find out as to whether the violations in the building construction, which are not sanctionable, have been removed or not. If on such enquiry, it is found out that the building violations, which are not sanctionable, have already been removed, then the resumption orders as well as the eviction orders passed against the petitioner shall be treated as nonest. However, if it is found that the aforesaid building violations are still existing, then the petitioner shall be afforded three weeks time to remove the aforesaid violations also. In the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall remove the aforesaid violations, failing which the resumption order and the eviction orders passed against the petitioner shall stand revived and in such a situation, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. We further direct that if any such violations, which are sanctionable in accordance with law, are existing at the spot, the petitioner shall file a revised building plan with the aforesaid representation to be filed before the Assistant estate Officer, respondent No.3, within a period of two weeks. Further necessary action in accordance with law shall be taken by the competent authority for grant of sanction of the revised building plan.

7. We also direct that till the matter is finally decided by the Assistant estate Officer, respondent No.3, the resumption orders as well as the eviction orders passed against the petitioner shall remain in abeyance.