E-Paper
Property owner not liable to pay misuse charges for delay on part of Chandigarh Estate Office
The Chandigarh chief administrator gave this decision came a resident of Sector 32 filed an appeal claiming that the Estate Office was intimated on April 20, 2011, that they had removed the alleged violations, but an inspection was carried out on October 4, 2011
In a major decision, UT chief administrator Vijay Namdeorao Zada has directed that a property owner will not be liable to pay misuse charges if there is a delay on the part of the Estate Office in carrying out inspection for removal of misuse violations.
The decision came after Subhash Satija, a resident of Sector 32, filed an appeal claiming that the Estate Office was intimated on April 20, 2011, that they had removed the alleged violations, but an inspection was carried out on October 4, 2011.
The appeal was filed against the orders dated October 4, 2011; November 29, 2011; and February 29, 2012, passed by the assistant estate officer (AEO) and estate officer (EO), whereby Satija 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 purposes”. But through an inspection, the field staff of Estate Office had found that the site was being misused by the occupiers for an office under the “KPH Dream Cricket (P) Ltd”.
Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued on April 13, 2011, to the owners as well as to the occupiers to remove the misuse. Thereafter, after a report by the inspecting staff, the AEO vacated the notice on October 4, 2011, and directed the officials to recover misuse charges from April 13, 2011, to October 4, 2011.
In compliance of the order, the Estate Office directed Satija to deposit the misuse charges to the tune of ₹94.75 lakh on November 29, 2011, and February 29, 2012.
‘Misuse charges illegal’
Vikas Jain, counsel for the appellant, stated that the Estate Office had illegally imposed the misuse charges without taking into consideration the material facts. He stated that immediately after the receipt of the show-cause notice, dated April 13, 2011, the appellant moved an application on April 20, 2011, along with an affidavit, that they had removed the alleged violations and the site may be inspected and proceedings of misuse may be dropped.
Thereafter, the AEO, instead of getting the site inspected, adjourned the proceedings as 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 that it had rightly imposed the misuse charges relating to the period during which the misuse existed.
On hearing both the parties, the court of Vijay Namdeorao Zade, chief administrator, UT, stated that the appellant had duly informed the Estate Office on April 20, 2011, that no alleged misuse existed at the site and despite his 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 April 20, 2011,” the chief administrator observed.
