JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated June 7, 2004 (Annexure P.4) passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, the order dated September 21, 2004 (Annexure P.5) passed by the Chief Administrator and the order dated August 25, 2005 (Annexure P.6) passed by the Advisor to the Administrator with regard to Bardana Booth site No. 269, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The petitioner is a transferee from the original allottee.
2. The original allottee was allotted the site in question in the year 1991. Actual physical possession of the site in question was offered to the original allottee on July 10,1991 and took up the aforesaid possession on September 13, 1991. According to the petitioner, the site in question was under unauthorised encroachments and the encroachers had got some stay from this Court. On account of the aforesaid fact, the original allottee could not get the actual physical possession of the site and consequently chose not to make the payment of installments. On account of death of original allottee the booth was transferred in the name of the petitioner on August 3, 1993 on the basis of registered Will. On account of non payment, the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and he was also required to pay interest/penal interest.
3. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. In the written statement filed by them, the respondents have relied upon an undertaking furnished by the general attorney of the original allottee which is in the following terms:
Certified that Booth No. 269, Grain Market Sector 26 has shown to me at the site and found free from visible encumbrance except tem. Bardana Shed falls in the site. I have no objection to take possession alongwith Bardana shed. I will not remove the Bardana Shed at my own. I will remove the bardana shed through concerned deptt. at my own before the actual construction of the building start. That in case of any delay is caused due to non removal of bardana shed I will not file any claim against the UT Administration.
Sd/-
Surinder Gupta
GPA of Banarsi Dass, Allottee.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid undertaking, the respondents have maintained that the original allottee had accepted the site and had raised no objection to the existence of Bardana shed at the spot. The respondents have also maintained that there was absolutely no justification for the allottee/transferee not to make the payment of instalments.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondents and specific undertaking furnished by the original allottee, we are satisfied that no case for interference is made out. Concededly, the petitioner is transferee from the original allottee and as such stepped into the shoes of the original allottee. Once the original allottee had not objected to the existence of Bardana shed at the site in question, then the petitioner cannot be heard to take any defence on that account.
6. However, if the petitioner clears all the outstanding dues within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, the aforesaid payment shall be adjusted towards outstanding dues.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
8. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.