E-Paper
Chandigarh: Sector-37 family wins 38-year battle, gets ‘resumed’ tag removed from property
The family’s patriarch, Rameshwar Dass Garg, who first went up against the order and his son, Anil Garg, who took the fight forward did not survive to see their protracted struggle come to fruition
A Sector-37 family’s 38-year-long battle to get their property’s resumption cancelled has finally come to an end, with the UT financial commissioner overturning the Estate Office’s order.
But the family’s patriarch, Rameshwar Dass Garg, who first went up against the order and his son, Anil Garg, who took the fight forward did not survive to see their protracted struggle come to fruition.
It was Anil’s widow Geeta Garg who finally led her family’s efforts since 1984 to completion.
While overturning the Estate Office order, UT financial commissioner Vijay Namdeorao Zade also directed action against the officials responsible for the error.
According to the appellant’s counsel, Vikas Jain, the site in question is House Number 3227 in Sector 37.
He said the property was initially allotted on a leasehold basis to Rameshwar Dass Garg in 1982. However, due to alleged misuse by his tenant, the house was resumed through an order dated January 11, 1982. Rameshwar appealed this decision before the UT chief administrator and the site was eventually restored in 1984, with the condition that a forfeiture amount be paid within 30 days.
Rameshwar complied with the condition and deposited the amount, which was duly accepted by the Estate Office. However, despite the restoration, the misuse allegedly continued.
As a result, Rameshwar filed a revision petition before the UT adviser, which was dismissed. In 1989, he approached the Punjab and Haryana high court that in September 1998 ordered restoration of the site, with the condition that the forfeiture amount, along with 12% interest, be paid within 30 days.
Following the court order, Rameshwar requested the Estate Office to provide the exact amount to be paid. The office confirmed that the forfeiture amount had been deposited on time and issued a no-dues certificate (NDC) to Rameshwar. Ground rent was subsequently paid by Rameshwar from 1999 to 2003, with the receipts presented as evidence in court. Another NDC was issued by the Estate Office on July 28, 2003, and Rameshwar continued to pay the ground rent and provide receipts.
Rameshwar passed away at the age of 70 on January 14, 2017. Upon applying for the transfer of ownership based on his father’s will, Anil was shocked to discover that the Estate Office still considered the plot under resumption. In an attempt to resolve the controversy, Anil paid the entire forfeiture amount along with interest, but the payment was returned with the notification that the house was still under resumption.
Anil, through his counsel, argued that his father had already paid the forfeiture amount in 1984, and the Estate Office had accepted the payment. Anil too passed away last year at the age of 50, following which his wife, Geeta, pursued the battle, until the resumption issue was resolved in her favour.
The site was restored to the owner with the condition that the Estate Office will provide a clear statement of outstanding dues, including interest, to the appellant within 15 days of the order. The appellant is required to deposit the amount within 15 days of receiving the intimation.
The finance secretary, acting as the financial commissioner, stated that the allottee had regularly requested information on outstanding dues from the Estate Office and had promptly deposited the amounts as communicated. Moreover, the Estate Office itself had issued NDC to the allottee on two occasions based on their records.
The counsel representing the Estate Office acknowledged the negligence of the dealing hand, which resulted in the controversy.
