Future acquisitions are not prohibited, and eligibility is to be seen at the relevant date. Allegations of transfer of leasehold rights require supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 - Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh, whereby, lease of residential Plot No.1274, Sector-44-B, Chandigarh was cancelled. Also assailed are the orders dated 18.05.2015 and 14.10.2016, whereby, petitioner's appeal and revision were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and Adviser to the Administrator, respectively.

2. Petitioner was enrolled as a member of the Progressive Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Chandigarh (for short 'the Society') on 31.3.1980. At that time, the petitioner did not own any plot or dwelling unit or residential site either in his own name or in the name of her family member at Chandigarh, Mani Majra, Panchkula, SAS Nagar or in any Municipal area in the States of Punjab and Haryana. She submitted an affidavit dated 28.7.1983 to that effect. Not owning a plot or dwelling unit as above was a condition for allotment.

3. The petitioner was subsequently allotted a dwelling Unit No.2512 (MIG-II), Sector 40-C, Chandigarh by the Chandigarh Housing Board, vide letter dated 25.10.1983.

4. The Society was allotted plots vide letter dated 22.3.1985 by the Chandigarh Administration. The Society further allotted flats to its members. The petitioner was allotted residential Plot No. 1274, Sector 44B, Chandigarh measuring 250 sq. yards, vide allotment letter dated 28.3.1985 on lease hold basis for 99 years.

5. On 27.10.2005, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. It was stated therein that as per Clause IV of Condition 5 of the Notification dated 28.9.1979 issued by the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh, a Society would not be eligible for allotment of a site if any of its members already owned a dwelling unit or a residential site either at Chandigarh, Mani Majra, Panchkula, SAS Nagar Mohali or in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Show Cause Notice further stated that as per inquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, Vigilance Cell, Chandigarh, it has been reported that the petitioner had secured allotment of Plot No. 1274 Sector 44-B, Chandigarh by supplying wrong information. In fact, the petitioner had already been allotted Plot No. 2512, Sector 40-C (MIG-II), Chandigarh by the Chandigarh Housing Board vide allotment letter dated 25.10.1983. Thus, the petitioner had concealed real facts and secured allotment of Plot No.1274 Sector 44-B Chandigarh by furnishing wrong information. The Show Cause Notice further stated that the petitioner has also violated Condition No. 16 of the allotment letter of the Society as per which the allottee was not to sell or otherwise transfer his/her rights in the site or part thereof for a period of 15 years from the date of completion of the building. As per the Show Cause Notice, from documents submitted to the office, it had been established that the petitioner had nominated and constituted one Mrs. Anjali Aggarwal as her attorney, as per registered deed dated 2.9.2004 attested by Notary Public, State of New York, USA. Certain other papers/documents had been executed by the petitioner in favour of Mrs. Anjali Aggarwal which constituted indirect under hand transfer of lease rights in the site in question.

6. Thereafter, the Estate Officer, vide order dated 17.04.2013 cancelled the lease of residential Plot No.1274, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh with immediate effect under Rule 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed vide the impugned orders.

7. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was residing in USA. She could not appear before the Estate Officer to contest the case. The case was contested on her behalf by her attorney Mrs.Anjali Aggarwal. The appeal and revision were pref