The lack of a legal relationship between the petitioners and the Chandigarh Administration precluded the petitioners' claim for regularisation of construction.

G.S. Singhvi, A.C.J. - This is a petition for quashing orders dated 18.6.1982, 1.11.2000 and 23.5.2001 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer; Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as the Appellate Authority) and Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, the Act).

2. For the purpose of deciding the issues raised in the petition, we may notice the facts which are borne out from the record of this case and C.W.P. No. 16382 of 2001 - Satya Pal v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, decided on 5.8.2002.

3. The Chandigarh Administration allotted plot No. 95-96-97, Sector 17-D to Dr. Gopal Singh some time in 1966 subject to the terms and conditions contained in allotment letter No. 1760/CP-1665 dated 25.9.1966. After constructing the building, Dr. Gopal Singh leased out a portion thereof to the Directorate of Primary Education, Punjab without obtaining occupation certificate. On coming to know of this, Estate Officer, Chandigarh issued notice dated 19.3.1969 to the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab to show cause as to why he may not be prosecuted under Section 15 of the Act for violation of Rule 18 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 (for short, the Building Rules). He then filed a complaint which was registered as State v. G.L. Bakshi, D.P.I., Punjab. Later on, the District Magistrate, Union Territory, Chandigarh decided to withdraw the notice apparently because Dr. Gopal Singh succeeded in convincing him that there was no violation of the Building Rules.

4. It appears that after having got clean chit from the Chandigarh Administration, Dr. Gopal Singh transferred the building to Ajit Singh, Resham Singh and others, who leased out different portions thereof to different parties. In 1980, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh initiated proceedings under Section 8-A of the Act for resumption of the site on the ground that the construction had been made in violation of Rule 5 of the Building Rules. The Estate Officer issued notice dated 4.9.1980 to the transferees, namely, Ajit Singh, Resham Singh Lally (respondent No. 4) and others and the occupiers of the building, namely, M/s Blue Star Tailor, M/s Banarsi Pan, M/s Cute Cloths, M/s Ram Chander, M/s Cute Cloth Atul Emporium, M/s Sainik Tea Stall, A.G. Office at IInd Floor and D.P.I., Punjab to show cause as to why the site may not be resumed in view of the following violations of the building rules :-

1. Constructed partition in the shop-cum-office;

2. Constructed five floors instead of four floors;

3. Show window on the rear side has been converted into booth and tea stall is running.

5. Neither the owners nor the occupiers contested the notice and no one appeared on their behalf at the time of hearing. Therefore, by taking the allegation of violation of the Building Rules as correct, the Assistant Estate Officer passed order dated 18.6.1982 for resumption of the site and forfeiture of 10% of the price. Appeal Nos. 356 of 1997 - Satpal Singh v. Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh; 99 of 1996 - Director Public Instructions (S), Punjab, Chandigarh v. Estate of U.T., Chandigarh and 218 of 1995 - M/s. Trend Shoppe and others v. Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh filed against the order of resumption were dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 1.11.2000. The relevant extracts of that order reads as under :-

"Sh. Ram Saran Dass & Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocates and Sh. Surmukh Singh appearing on behalf of DPI(S) argued that the appellants were not party to the building violations. The violations were committed by the transferees/landlords and were rented out to different tenants to earn more income. They further submitted that the present appellants being not party to the violations cannot be made to suffer because of the defaults of th