Dushyant Singh Pundir
Chandigarh, October 5
The UT Chief Administrator has made it clear misuse charges cannot be imposed on a property owner for delay on part of the Estate Office in carrying out inspection for removal of violations.
The directions came on an appeal filed by Subhash Satija, a resident of Sector 32, wherein the appellant claimed the Estate Office was informed on April 20, 2011, about removal of alleged misuse, but the inspection was carried out by the Estate Office more than five months later, i.e. on October 4.
The appeal was filed against orders dated October 4 and November 29, 2011, and February 29, 2012, passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) and Estate Officer (EO), respectively, whereby appellant was asked to deposit misuse charges in respect of a house in Sector 19-A.
As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the site could only be used for “residential purpose”. On inspection made by the Estate Office field staff, it was found site was being misused by occupants as “two rooms on ground floor and three rooms on the first floor were being used for office purpose in the name and style of M/s KPH Dream Cricket (P) Ltd”.
Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued on April 13, 2011, to owners as well as to occupants to remove the misuse. Thereafter, the AEO vacated the notice on October 4, 2011, on the basis of report of the inspecting staff and further directed the officials to recover the misuse charges from April 13 to October 4, 2011.
In compliance of order, the Estate Office directed the appellant to deposit the misuse charges to the tune of Rs 94.75 lakh on November 29, 2011, and February 29, 2012.
Vikas Jain, counsel for the appellant, stated the Estate Office had illegally imposed the misuse charges without taking into consideration the material facts. He further stated immediately after the receipt of the April 13 show-cause notice, the appellant moved an application on April 20, 2011, along with affidavit claiming they had removed the alleged violations and the site be inspected and proceedings of misuse be dropped.
Thereafter, the AEO, instead of getting the site inspected, adjourned the proceedings sine die for seeking clarification in all such cases from the Chandigarh Administration.
On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the Estate Office stated the Estate Office had rightly imposed the misuse charges relating to the period during which the misuse existed.
On hearing both sides, the court of Dr Vijay Namdeorao Zade, Chief Administrator, UT, stated the appellant had duly informed the Estate Office on April 20, 2011, no alleged misuse existed at the site and despite a request, the Estate Office did not bother to inspect the site. “The appellant should not suffer due to fault on part of the Estate Office and the misuse charges, if any recoverable, should be recovered up to the date of intimation i.e. April 20, 2011,” observed the Chief Administrator.
Recovery to be made from intimation date
A Sector 32 resident claimed the Estate Office was informed on April 20, 2011, about removal of misuse of premises following a notice, but inspection was carried out five months later, i.e. on October 4Assistant Estate Officer, on the basis of report of inspecting staff, directed officials to recover misuse charges from April 13 to October 4, 2011On Nov 29, 2011, and Feb 29, 2012, the Estate Office directed appellant to deposit Rs 94.75 lakh as misuse chargesChief Administrator’s court said despite appellant informing EO on April 20, it did not inspect site right away. It ordered recovery of misuse charges up to date of intimation
