Chandigarh: Brigadier’s widow gets relief from out-of-the-blue resumption order

Reprimanding the Estate Office, Chandigarh chief administrator-cum-finance secretary Vijay Namdeorao Zade has set aside the letter through which the woman was told to supply the resumption order issued on June 10, 1993, for her house in Sector 10, something that she and her husband never received

A grieving army officer’s widow, who received an unexpected property resumption jolt through an UT Estate Office order after her husband’s death, has received relief from the UT chief administrator.

The Brigadier had passed away on October 22, 2022, following which his widow applied for property transfer in her name on the basis of her husband’s registered will, when she was informed about the resumption order by the Chandigarh Estate Office. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Reprimanding the Estate Office, UT chief administrator-cum-finance secretary Vijay Namdeorao Zade has set aside the letter through which the woman was told to supply the resumption order issued on June 10, 1993, for her house in Sector 10, something that she and her husband never received.

Vikas Jain, counsel for the woman, Raminder Kaur Virdi, widow of Brigadier Sahib Singh Virdi, in the plea said the army officer had purchased Plot Number 14 in Sector 10 in 1965 and since then had used it for private residence.

The Brigadier passed away on October 22, 2022, following which Raminder applied for property transfer in her name on the basis of her husband’s registered will.

It was then that she learnt from officials at the Estate Office that the site in question “was resumed in 1993”. Jain contended that no resumption order was presented to her and only an entry in the resumption register, dated June 10, 1993, was cited.

On June 13, 2023, the Estate Office issued a letter asking her to furnish any restoration order in respect of the 1993 resumption order, without showing the supporting resumption order, which is totally illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside, Jain appealed.

On its part, the Estate Office submitted said as per a website entry, the property in question stood resumed on June 10, 1993, on account of misuse, but the record of said file was not traceable. Therefore, to proceed further, the appellant was rightly asked to furnish the restoration order in respect of the resumption order.

Setting aside the Estate Office’s orders , the chief administrator said, “The Estate Office is the custodian of the record relating to properties falling under its jurisdiction. So, how can they ask the appellant to produce the restoration order when they themselves failed to show the resumption order.”

He directed the office to consider the property transfer claim of the woman afresh, and pass a well-explained speaking order as per law and as per available record within three months.