1997 Supreme(P&H) 1105

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and M.L.Singhal JJ.
Bhajan Singh And Sons (Huf)
Versus
Chandigarh Administration U.T.
Decided On : JULY 22, 1997

The principles of natural justice require that no man shall be condemned unheard and that all material intended to be used against a party must be made known to the affected party, who must be given an opportunity of defense.

Headnote:

CAPITAL OF PUNJAB (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1952 - SECTION 3, 13(A), 16, 17, 29 - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 4, 5, 9 - CHANDIGARH LEASE HOLD OF SITES AND BUILDING RULES, 1973 - RULE 12, 13, 20, 21, 22 - Interpretation of statutory provisions and rules governing the allotment, use, and misuse of commercial sites in Chandigarh - Principles of natural justice and fair hearing - Scope of appellate and revisional powers - Validity of orders passed by estate officer, chief administrator, and adviser to the administrator - Conditions for restoration of site and initiation of fresh action against allottees.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, allottees of a commercial site in Chandigarh, leased a portion of the premises to International Polytechnic for Women, which started a girls' hostel and college in violation of the lease conditions. The Assistant Estate Officer issued a notice to the allottees, who replied that they had asked the tenant to stop the misuse. The Assistant Estate Officer canceled the lease and forfeited 10% of the premium. The Chief Administrator annulled the order, restoring the site to the allottees but upholding the forfeiture. The Adviser to the Administrator rejected the revision petition, relying on an inspection report showing continued misuse of the premises. The allottees challenged the orders, arguing violation of natural justice, non-application of mind, and arbitrariness.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Chief Administrator had the jurisdiction to maintain the forfeiture of 10% premium even while restoring the site to the allottees. The appellate authority has wide powers to confirm, vary, or reverse the order appealed against and pass such order as it deems fit. The court also held that the order passed by the revisional authority was liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, as the allottees were not given notice or opportunity of hearing on the inspection report relied upon by the authority. The court further held that the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer was also liable to be ignored as it had been quashed by the appellate authority and the revisional order was found to be illegal.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Administrator had the jurisdiction to maintain the forfeiture of 10% premium while restoring the site to the allottees. 2. Whether the order passed by the revisional authority was violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer was liable to be ignored.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Chief Administrator had the jurisdiction to maintain the forfeiture of 10% premium even while restoring the site to the allottees, relying on Section 10(2) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 22(2) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, which confer wide powers upon the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders. 2. The court held that the order passed by the revisional authority was violative of the principles of natural justice, as the allottees were not given notice or opportunity of hearing on the inspection report relied upon by the authority. The court relied on the settled principle of law that no man shall be condemned unheard and that all material intended to be used against a party must be made known to the affected party, who must be given an opportunity of defense. 3. The court held that the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer was liable to be ignored as it had been quashed by the appellate authority and the revisional order was found to be illegal.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the order passed by the revisional authority, and the orders/judgments passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. However, the court imposed certain conditions, including compliance with the directions given by the Chief Administrator and the right of the Estate Officer to initiate fresh action against the petitioners if they failed to comply with the conditions.