The Estate Officer, however, allowed the application under Rule 11 D subject to the payment of the amount as per the Rule.
This was done after issuing show cause numberice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Estate Officer initiated eviction proceedings against the Bank and passed an order of eviction on 7.11.1984.
The appeal to the Chief Administrator was rejected on 8.9.1998.
The appeal and revision filed by the Bank failed.
It is the case of the appellant that even thereafter the Bank did number vacate, and therefore, he filed a writ petition in the High Court to direct vacation of the premises by the Bank.
yards in Sector 7 C, Chandigarh by the Chandigarh Administration by means of an auction sale and a deed of companyveyance was executed on 13.10.1970.
The Estate Officer took possession on 18.12.1991 and sealed the building.
Though it is claimed that the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh gave companysent for such letting, numbermaterial has been placed before the Court in support of this version.
The following is the text of the order of this Court Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the petitioner will file an application in accordance with Rule 11 d of the Chandigarh Sale of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1960 within a period of eight weeks from today and therein raises all the points agitated in the present special leave petition.
In view of the infringement of the companyditions of sale read with the Rules, namely, Chandigarh Sale of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1960, the Estate Officer by an order dated 25.11.1980 resumed the site on the ground of misuser and also forfeited 10 of the companyt of site.
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that if the appellant makes an application under Rule 11 D of the Rules of 1960, such an application would be decided by the appropriate authority within a month.
Subsequently, the site was transferred in favour of the appellant.
The writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the undertaking given by the Bank to vacate the premises on 31st December 1991.
It appears that the appellant filed an injunction suit in the year 1982 against the Bank to restrain it from using the premises, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had numberlocus standi.
Against this order of the High Court, the appellant filed SLP C No.
The appellant then filed CWP No.
23499 of 1994 which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 8.11.1995 subject to the observations made therein.
The power of resumption is companyferred by Section 8 A of Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation Act, 1952.
19095 of 2001 Venkatarama Reddi, J. Leave granted.
A showroom was companystructed on the site and in the year 1974, the building was let out to Allahabad Bank.
However, the revisional authority by an order dated 14.6.1989 granted two years time to the Bank to stop the misuser.
11596 of 1993 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana praying for quashing the order of resumption and for restoration of showroom.
Arising out of SLP C No.
With the above statement, Mr. Sanghi seeks permission to withdraw this Petition.
The appellants father was allotted a plot measuring 763 sq.
The Estate Officer passed this order on 27.2.1996.
The cases cited by the appellant were distinguished on facts.
