Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Appeals and revision. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Estate Officer made under '[section 8 or 8-A] may, within thirty days of the date of the communication to him of such order, prefer an appeal to the Chief Admin- istrator in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the Chief Administrator may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) The Ch ief Admi n istrator -nay, after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary, or reverse the order appealed from an.1 may pass such orders as he deems fit. (3) The Chief Admi n istrator may, either of his own motion or on an applica- tion received in this behalf, at any time call for the record of any proceeding in which the Estate Officer has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit: Provided that the Chief Administrator shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where a person is aggrieved by any order of the Chief Administrator, deciding a case under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), he may, within thirty days of the date of communication to him of such decision, make an application in writing to the [Central Government] for revision against the said decision ; and the 2[Central Government] may confirm, alter or rescind the decision of the Chief Administrator. COMMENTARY Arbitrary order - Revision - Petitioner was allowed to file his written submission by the Administrator, U.T. by a particular date - Revision petition was dismissed even before the expiry of date fixed for filing the submission without waiting for the particular date - Revision petition not decided in a proper and fair manner - Order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and liable to be quashed - M/s. Sawan Ram Vijay Kumar v. Advisor to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh, 1997 H.R.R. 606 D.B. Limitation - Revisional Authority dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation as no explanation for delay was given by the petitioner - Order of revisional authority justified and not open to challange under Article 226 of Constitution - Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration v. Smt. Anita Arora, 2001 HRR 241 D.B. Notice - Tenant's eviction - Allottee raised construction in SCO in viola- tion ofprovisions ofthe Act 1952 Five floors instead of4 floors were constructed and partition was also effected - Show windows on rear sides were converted in booth - Petitioners were inducted as tenant about 5 years after order of re- sumption - They filed appeal about 10 years after the order of resumption contending that they being necessary parties, order of resumption is not, binding on them - There was no need to issue show cause notice to them because they were not occupying the premises when resumption proceedings were initiated - I. Substituted by Capital of Punjab (Development 8c Regulation) Amendment Act 17 of 1973