Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 68340 (PNJ)

KRISHNA DEVI v. THE ADVISOR TO ADMINISTRATOR UT CHANDIGARH AND ORS

CWP/17299/2025 · 2025-07-01

Alok Jain, Sudhir Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-17299-2025 (O&M) 143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Krishna Devi The Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. CORAM: HON HON Present:- Ms. Naseem A. Sheikh for Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Addl. Standing Counsel with Mr. Karanvir Singh, Junior for the respondents SUDHIR SINGH Present Writ in the nature of pending case/s with regard to imposition of misuse charges in respect of the premises in question as also with regard to transfer of the property in question on the basis of registered Will and to decide the same expeditiously, preferably in a given time frame, in compliance with the order/s dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure P Petition No.40 & 41 of 2014, whereby the respondent directed to decide the case/s afresh by considering 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: versus The Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Ms. Naseem A. Sheikh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Addl. Standing Counsel with Mr. Karanvir Singh, Junior Panel Counsel for the respondents. ***** SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present Writ Petition herein, inter alia in the nature of Mandamus for directing respondent pending case/s with regard to imposition of misuse charges in respect of the premises in question as also with regard to transfer of the property in question on the basis of registered Will and to decide the same expeditiously, in a given time frame, in compliance with the order/s dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.1 Petition No.40 & 41 of 2014, whereby the respondent directed to decide the case/s afresh by considering 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17299-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: July 01, 2025 ….Petitioner Chandigarh and others ….Respondents SUDHIR SINGH ALOK JAIN , Advocate Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Addl. Standing Counsel with Panel Counsel inter alia, is for issuance of a Writ respondents No.2 & 3 to take up the pending case/s with regard to imposition of misuse charges in respect of the premises in question as also with regard to transfer of the property in question on the basis of registered Will and to decide the same expeditiously, in a given time frame, in compliance with the order/s dated 6), passed by respondent No.1-Advisor in Revision Petition No.40 & 41 of 2014, whereby the respondent-Estate Officer was directed to decide the case/s afresh by considering all the contentions of the 3 2025 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner s Writ 3 to take up the pending case/s with regard to imposition of misuse charges in respect of the premises in question as also with regard to transfer of the property in question on the basis of registered Will and to decide the same expeditiously, in a given time frame, in compliance with the order/s dated Advisor in Revision Estate Officer was all the contentions of the PARUL 2025.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-17299-2025 (O&M) 2 of 3 petitioner after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in pursuance to the order dated 25.02.2016, respondent No. 1 had remitted the matter back to respondent No. 2 for deciding the issue. However, the same has yet not been decided. He relies on para 6 of order dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure P-6), which is reproduced as under: 6. “After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the site in question has been allotted under the Chandigarh Milk Colony Allotment of Sites Rules, 1975 and as per Rule 6 of the Act, the lessee was required to keep at least 5 heads of cattle at the site. Since, the allottee failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and as such the Estate Officer issued show cause notice dated 3.6.2004 under Rule 10(3) and 19(15) of the Chandigarh Milk Colony Allotment of Sites, 1975. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below have gone wrong in imposing the misuse charges as the proceedings were initiated by virtue of show cause notice dated 3.6.2004 issued under Rule 10(3) and 19(15) of the Chandigarh Milk Colony Allotment of Sites, 1975 and under these rules there is no provision for imposing misuse charges. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Sh. Kuldeep Singh son of Mohinder Singh was summoned by the court of Assistant Estate Officer to appear and substantiate of his claim of non transfer but he failed to appear before the said authority and rather the petitioner has proved genuineness of Will. He stated that the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2013 titled as Kamal Kumar Vs. UT, Chandigarh had taken queue of the stock of affairs and issued direction to the Chandigarh Administration for issuing notification in respect of PARUL 2025.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-17299-2025 (O&M) 3 of 3 transfer of the properties on the basis of will cases by laying down a uniform formula. The case of the petitioner squarely covered under the policy issued by the Chandigarh Administration. I also find that the orders dated 22.7.2008 and 16.2.2011 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer is a non speaking order and therefore, it is a fit case to remand back to the Estate Officer for passing afresh order with the directions to consider the points raised by the petitioner before this court and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, after giving due and proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh on 10.3.2016.” 3. In light of the observations referred above, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take all necessary steps to comply with the order dated 25.02.2016 in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy/ production of this order. (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE July 01, 2025 parul Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PARUL 2025.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document