E-Paper
9 years on, misuse charges slapped on Chandigarh SCO overturned
There was no basis for imposing misuse charges as it did not fall within the purview of misuse, said Chandigarh chief administrator and finance secretary Vijay Namdeorao Zade.
The UT chief administrator has set aside an Estate Office order through which misuse charges were imposed on the owner of a Sector-35 showroom in 2014.
There was no basis for imposing misuse charges as it did not fall within the purview of misuse, said chief administrator and finance secretary Vijay Namdeorao Zade.
The site in question is SCO Number 286 in Sector 35, owned by Varinder Kumar Sethi.
Sethi had lodged an appeal with the chief administrator against the 2014 order issued by the assistant estate officer (AEO), and the 2016 and 2017 orders passed by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM, South)-cum-estate officer.
The AEO’s order directed the Estate Office to compute misuse charges concerning the SCO, which Sethi’s counsel Vikas Jain contended was illegal and arbitrary.
He contended that the SCO was allotted in 1970 and the conveyance deed was executed on January 25, 1974. In the allotment letter as well as the conveyance deed, it was clearly stipulated that the entire showroom was allotted for commercial purpose and no restriction was incorporated by the UT administration that a particular floor will not be used for commercial purpose.
In June 2002, the administration for the first time introduced misuse charges. Jain produced an October 2003 letter issued by the then UT finance secretary to the estate officer that clarified that the 2002 notification as well as other notifications on the subject were to be applied with prospective effective only.
Therefore, the sites allotted prior to such notifications/amendments will be governed by the classification of trades as on the date of such auction/allotment.
Jain contended that the SCO in question was allotted in 1970, when no classification of trades existed. These were introduced for the first time in 1975. Thus, the SCO could be used entirely for commercial purpose for any trade as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter and conveyance deed. “Therefore, the alleged misuse never existed at the site and the misuse charges could not be demanded,” he said.
He further submitted that the SCO was transferred in the name of the appellant in October 2007. Seven years later, in 2014, misuse proceedings were initiated illegally without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and without passing a speaking order.
Admitting the submissions, the chief administrator observed, “In response to the provisions of, and terms and conditions of allotment letter, on the basis of which the site in question was transferred in the name of the appellant, the counsel for the Estate Office failed to show anything as to how the provisions of Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, could be applicable in the present case.”
As such, the authority set aside the orders of the then AEO and SDM (South).
