JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.2 ordering cancellation of Booth No.352, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, order dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory Chandigarh, vide which the appeal challenging the above said order was dismissed in default, order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-12) passed by the same authority dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal and order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-18) passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, dismissing the revision petition as preferred by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the Estate Officer has cancelled the lease deed of Booth No.352, Sector 20 D, which was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on the ground of non-execution of the lease deed vide order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P- 7). Shri Nand Lal, father of the petitioner, filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, which was dismissed on account of non-prosecution vide order dated 30.05.016 (Annexure P-9) leading to the filing of an application dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P-10) for restoration of the appeal to its original number along with application for bringing on record legal heirs of Shri Nand Lal, who had expired on 17.11.2015 but the said applications were dismissed in default on 23.08.2021 (Annexure P-11). Another application dated 17.05.2022 was preferred requesting the restoration of the applications and the appeal to its original number but the same was also dismissed/filed on 21/27.06.2022 without hearing the petitioner. It was asserted that the allottee was willing to execute the lease deed during his lifetime and similarly now the petitioner being a legal heir is ready to execute the same. The cancellation of the lease deed as passed on 06.02.2013, therefore, may be set aside. He contends that the petitioner would be uprooted and the purpose for which the scheme was launched by the Chandigarh Administration by allotting booths would stand defeated in case the booth in question is not ordered to be restored to the petitioner.

3. When confronted with the factum as detailed in the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Advisor to the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.4 that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Shri Nand Lal, his father, never appeared before the Estate Officer and one Mohinder Pal, who claimed himself to be the General Power of Attorney, appeared three or four times, counsel for the petitioner has asserted that there was no power of attorney, which is on record, however, the factum that as per clause 8 of the allotment letter, the lessee/allottee was required to execute a lease deed on the requisite non-judicial stamp paper after expiry of one month from the date of allotment in such a manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer. The factum of the allotment being through letter dated 16.01.1997 has not been disputed. Rule 14 (1) of The Leasehold of Sites and Buildings Rules , 1973, requires a lessee, rather binds him to execute a lease deed in Form B and C after expiry of one month from the date of allotment. Failure to execute the lease deed empowers the Estate Officer to even cancel the lease and forfeit a sum upto 25% of the premium as is required to be so deposited. The Estate Officer had issued show cause notice dated 20.07.2009 and afforded 25 opportunities of being heard and it is thereafter wh